• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Change Requests | OGC

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

Membagikan "Change Requests | OGC"

Copied!
2
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

All Fields marked with

*

are mandatory.

Name:

*

Marie-Lise Vautier

Organization:

*

DGIWG

Email:

*

[email protected]

Document

If this is a revision of a previous submission and you have a Change Request Number, then check here:

Enter the CR number here:

Enter the Revsion Number that you are revising here:

Title:

*

Various line styles

Source:

*

Fr

ede

ric Morin, Stefan Strobel, ML Vautier

Work item code:

Category:

*

B (Addition of feature)

Reason for

change:

*

DGIWG S15 project investigated the use of KML for the military community. One topic was to use KML to portray command and control data according to the MIL-STD-2525B common warfighting symbology. A number of styling requirements were identified as a result, including support for different line styles ("dot",

"dashdot", "longdash", "longdashdot" and

"solid"). The solution proposed for these line styles was implemented in one Canadian forces system using OpenLayers.

Summary of

change:

*

Addition of the following values to the previously proposed "style" enumeration (on the LineStyle element):

"dot", "dashdot", "longdash", "longdashdot" and "solid" value.

NB: the addition of the "style" element as well as a "

dash" value was proposed in a previous CR.

(2)

Consequences if

not approved:

Inability to use KML to represent MIL-STD-2525B planned/anticipated tactical graphics

Clauses affected:

*

12.11

Additional

Documents

affected:

Supporting

Documentation:

Comments:

Status:

Assigned

Assigned To:

KML SWG

Disposition:

Referred and Posted

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

These difficulties typically require local edits to approved XML Schema Documents, stored at http://schemas.opengis.net/ , when two or more used together reference two or more

In the INSPIRE domain models Land Cover and Land Use are modeled as separate entities, which might be even better than adding a land cover code list to LandUse. Consequences if

not approved: Lack of interoperability, lack of harmonised approaches to encoding range semantics information within coverages, inadequate implementation in GML of ISO 19123

While this could just be handled internally within the implementation, there is a question as to whether allowable roles should be disclosed in the Capabilities. Consequences if

The OWS Common 1.2 SWG Scope of Work includes the need to Define a URN to Identify Service Type, this should consider profile versions. Summary

Then the question is if common OWS operation parameters (like for example the acceptLanguages parameters) would not better be put into common extension elements of operation

Reason for change:  First, SPS is not fully harmonized with SWE Common, but uses a proprietary approach to define parameters and tasking arguments..

For example, a KML geometry element that encodes a simple polygon could render through a styling service that interprets usage-specific styling instructions and returns an