Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List

New Message	Reply	About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Peter MATTHEWS (matthews_at_melbpc.org.au)
Date: Tue Apr 23 2002 - 21:59:24 CEST

Next message: Alexander Nickolsky: "Internationalization"
Previous message: martinl_at_talk21.com: "Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List"

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 05:59:24 +1000
From: Peter MATTHEWS <matthews_at_melbpc.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20020422010303.BOA6409.wmpmta03-app.mail-store.com_at_wmpmtav irtual>
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020423202531.01d63280@popa.melbpc.org.au>
Subject: Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List
To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch

Thanks Martin for those excellent comments. I'll incorporate them into the
updated task list which I'm preparing at present, for issue within a day or
so. My further comments below.

Peter

At 01:57 22-04-02 +0100, martinl_at_talk21.com wrote:
>Could I suggest that the task list suggested by Peter be adjusted as follows?
>
>Basically, I think that the definition of formats (part of Pete's Task 5)
>is a task and then, for each format identified there, the task is to
>produce a specification document encompassing the rest of his task 5 and
>tasks 6-11. Concurrently, sample implementations and explanatory
>documentation would be produced. I would suggest that the document be
>along the lines of the W3C specifications.

Yes, the list definitely needed a bit of sorting out to clarify that there
would now be several format "streams". As well as looking at W3C, we could
also look at how other "industry groups" have done their XML transfer specs.

>In addition, every attempt should be made to widen participation beyond
>the currently active Americans, British, and Australians with occasional
>Dutch, Czech and Russian contributions. Where are the French, Spanish, and
>Italians who survey their abundance of long and deep caves, assorted East
>European slavs and magyars with their long heritage of surveying caves,
>the Asiatics who have some of the largest caves in their countries, albeit
>often surveyed up to now by foreign expeditions?

Don't forget the Swiss participants! But I couldn't agree more. I had
planned to start a publicity campaign by all of us as soon as we had the
credible updated objectives and task list on our web site. See also below.

>
>Tasks (Individual high-level tasks we need to do to achieve our
>Objectives.)
>===== [My comments shown in square brackets]
>
>o Draw up the Scope and Objectives for the group. [Done, but should remain
>open to review and revision]

Definitely open to updating as necessary.

>o Establish the official WG delegate for each interested country (UIS
>voting is by country). [Not started, and not probably terribly important
>to most participants. It is much better to have more enthusiastic and
>adept people involved directly than to burden a few worthy mouthpieces.]

Yes, we need as many enthusiastic and competant participants as possible
during the development stage, but at the end we will need actual delegates
to vote on the final proposals in order to formalise our results.

>o Catch up with the good work which has already been done in this area:
>Each existing worker to post a "summary" of what they have done, as well
>as point us to their detail, e.g. via their web page. [Done, but should
>be summarised on the WG website]

We do already link to several participant's sites, but some summaries would
be good too. Any volunteers to do the summaries? We have also not had any
responses yet to the call for a volunteer to summarise the issues raised on
the mailing list to date.

>o Establish a website and mailinglist as a platform for discussion and
>publishing roadmaps, working drafts and results. [Done, but should be an
>ongoing task, encouraging feedback and improvement.]

Definitely.

>o Publicise the project as widely as possible through the international
>caving (and wider underground interest) communities to encourage
>participation and takeup irrespective of language. [This should be a
>priority from the start, not after standards have been formulated. XML is
>inherently internationalisable through its use of Unicode; XSLT can also
>assist in translating. This could also assist in revitalsing the UIS'
>dictionary project]

Agreed, as soon as we have the basic task list issued. Is there a volunteer
to run the publicity campaign? And volunteers to tackle various components
of the campaign, e.g. in various countries?

>o Decide on standalone transfer formats that will be needed (without
>restricting the possibility of combining them)
>e.g. survey data (raw and adjusted for corrections; simple to refined
>techniques (eg don't need to consider repeated readings, forward and back
>sights, etc for a simple line survey as used in , I suspect, the majority
>of surveys to date))
> survey co-ordinates (calculated or captured)
> graphics (2D and 3D).
>
> For each format:
> o produce a specification of an XML structured hierarchy of elements,
> and define their content in terms of attributes and/or text; enumerated
> content options, data formats. XML Schema, Schematron and possibly other
> means should be used to give precision to the definitions and assist in
> their implementation.

Agreed. What's a Schematron?

>
> [Peter Matthews has prepared an initial draft diagram and entity
> definitions for discussion, but not yet published (Didn't that French
> chap Fermat say something like that once?). Entities and fields are
> likely to be quite close to XML elements and attributes]

Sorry Martin, but I'm already spread too thinly, so had to get the admin
out of the way before launching into the technical discussion, hence had
not published the ERD etc yet. :-( Yes, when we agree on the real-world
entities and their fields which we need, then we will have a definite list
to follow when defining the XML to express these fields.

> o Produce regular working drafts for the proposed standards. [published
> on the website for discussion and revised in the light of comments
> submitted to a form on the website or via the email list, both archived]

Agreed.

> o. Provide documented software demonstrating a sample implementation of
> the standard. [this need not be done in parallel with the development of
> the standard, but I would expect parallel development to enhance the
> usefulness and practicality of both. I have a Java program which accepts
> from/to/distance/bearing/inclination of a format defined in an XML
> Schema, parses and validates it, calculates coordinates and draws a line
> survey using an SVG file and viewer]

We will need to decide what software will be needed, and then organise some
volunteers to produce it. Obvious examples in addition to yours above are
both ways between CaveXML and each popular cave surveying program format,
and both ways between CaveXML and comma-delimited text files for
import/export to/from DBMS tables. (Australia has already done a lot of
work like the latter, with transforming from an old non-XML transfer format
to comma-delimited files which were imported into the new version of its
relational national cave db.)

>o Vote by WG delegates.
>
>o Ratification by UISIC.
>
>Regards,
>and lets get on with it!

OK, OK, we're nearly there :-)

>Martin Laverty
>
>--------------------
>talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at
>http://www.talk21.com

Next message: Alexander Nickolsky: "Internationalization"
Previous message: martinl_at_talk21.com: "Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List"

New Message	Reply	About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 30 2002 - 23:00:00 CEST