Re: [atoca] Next milestone

"Carl Reed" <> Tue, 25 September 2012 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059B721F897E for <>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.043
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bqVupUVPGfO6 for <>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3173A21F897A for <>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DCE9413D; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:31:12 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TbLiXs4ySrE6; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:31:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from OfficeHP ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A04D9415F; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:31:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <57613BF6D8F244BE9B12221EB8F7029F@OfficeHP>
From: "Carl Reed" <>
To: "Brian Rosen" <>, "Art Botterell" <>
References: <><><> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:31:01 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Subject: Re: [atoca] Next milestone
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:31:14 -0000

Brian -

Your observation WRT polygons and jurisdictions is one reason the Taiwanese 
went with GeoRSS and Open GeoSMS for their national debris flow alerting 
system. They needed to specify areas of interest, ranging from hydrological 
basins to city boundaries. They are hoping to use CAP in the future.



-----Original Message----- 
From: Brian Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:25 PM
To: Art Botterell
Subject: Re: [atoca] Next milestone

I guess that's my point.  Without more spec, we have interoperability 
issues.  When you have limited CAP deployment, these can be dealt with by 
prior arrangement.  We probably can't do that.  I would prefer that a 
polygon be encoded with GML, which is precise, interoperable and an accepted 
global standard.  That can be wrapped in a PIDF (an IETF standard) or not, 
but we need something very interoperable.

Forcing polygons may work in a forward looking sense.   I'm probably 
convincible that a jurisdictional areas aren't needed, but so many of the 
alert sources I'm interested in supporting are based on jurisdictions.  I 
guess just telling them they need to come up with a relatively simple 
polygon is okay.  Since increasingly, device location is GPS (or equivalent) 
based, we probably need geo always.


On Sep 25, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Art Botterell <> wrote:

> On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>> For example, how do you target "Allegheny County, PA, US"?  A text line? 
>> With what syntax?  A polygon?
> In CAP the recommended presentation would be a polygon, a line of text 
> that might well read "Allegheny County, PA, US" and optionally a <geocode> 
> value, which in the US would typically be a FIPS-based code conforming to 
> the old Emergency Alert System standard (in this case, "042003").
> There are a few subtleties here.  First, most hazard footprints don't 
> align very well with political boundaries, so it's actually considered 
> best practice NOT to address an alert to everyone in a political 
> jurisdiction if better resolution is available, which increasingly often 
> is the case.  (This is probably the biggest challenges in the transition 
> from the legacy EAS and Weather Radio systems in the States and the newer 
> CAP-based IPAWS framework.)
> Second, but related to the first... there is at present no strict limit on 
> the number of vertices in a polygon in CAP.  Generally this hasn't been a 
> problem, as both manual and model-derived (e.g., from a hazardous 
> materials "plume model" software) polygons tend to be relatively simple. 
> However, if one uses a political jurisdiction as the target area and if, 
> as often is the case, that jurisdiction is defined at least in part by a 
> waterway or water body, then at least part of the "true" polygon will be 
> fractal in nature and the number of vertices used to represent it becomes 
> an implementation decision.
> In such cases conversion from GIS geometries developed for other purposes 
> can, at least in theory, produce very lengthy polygon description strings. 
> Some degree of polygon simplification, manually or by means of a "convex 
> hull" calculation, may be helpful in such situations; fortunately those 
> can be calculated ahead of time.  A common guideline and a requirement of 
> the IPAWS profile in the U.S. is that a polygon be limited to 100 
> vertices.  Again, this is largely a theoretical concern, and I'm not aware 
> of any case where this has actually been a problem.
> And third, of course, there's quite a bit of variety in how polygons get 
> represented as strings.  Latitude first and then longitude, or the reverse 
> "x,y" order?  Commas between the coordinates and spaces between the pairs, 
> or vice versa, or some other delimiters?  All such representations are 
> ultimately equivalent (at least until we drill down to the level of 
> whether we're using the increasingly common GPS-standard WGS84 datum or 
> some model of the precise shape of the Earth.)  But it's important to be 
> clear which format is being used and to remember of convert as necessary, 
> e.g., between CAP and KML.
> The CAP spec deprecates the use of geocodes (arbitrary string designators) 
> without also providing the corresponding geometry (polygon), since to do 
> otherwise is to assume that the receiving device knows every possible 
> geocoding scheme it might ever encounter, which in an open global system 
> is probably infeasible.  Indeed, ideally we might have done without 
> geocodes entirely, but back-compatibility with legacy systems (and the 
> comfort of some non-GIS-savvy programmers who understood string-matching 
> but were uncomfortable with things like point-in-polygon algorithms) 
> dictated their inclusion.
> And the text areaDescription field is defined merely as "human readable" 
> so it can be as concise or as extensive as circumstances dictate. 
> However, where multi-lingual alerting is required it tends to be kept 
> short to facilitate translation.
> -  Art
> _______________________________________________
> atoca mailing list

atoca mailing list