- To: <gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx>, <rhusar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Thoughts on GALEON Phase 2
- From: <Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 06:28:43 +0800
But please note that GML is *not* a language - it is a toolkit for building languages.
CSML is one such GML APplication language. SensorML is not ... yet, but ought to be!
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: owner-galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Gerry Creager N5JXS Sent: Tue 28/02/2006 10:27 PM To: rhusar@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: GALEON email list Subject: Re: Thoughts on GALEON Phase 2Rudy, I tend to agree and I think that's the point I was trying to make. We're going to need to consider, over time, a more encompassing language to describe these. ESML, SensorML, and GML are all key elements, but no one markup, in itself, is sufficient. I hate to think in terms of supersetting these markups, as we could well lose the ability to manage their content, and then lose precision in description. However, I suspect that such supersetting will provide the mechanism to extend each, and eventually find a way to resolve to a more common theme. Thanks for the pointer to the AQ work. I was actually looking for something like this to support our TexAQS studies! gerry
- References:
- RE: Thoughts on GALEON Phase 2
- From: Ron Lake
- Re: Thoughts on GALEON Phase 2
- From: Ben Domenico
- Re: Thoughts on GALEON Phase 2
- From: Rudolf Husar
- Re: Thoughts on GALEON Phase 2
- From: Gerry Creager N5JXS
- RE: Thoughts on GALEON Phase 2