[LandXML] Re: DesignCrossSectSurf in LandXML 1.1

Dr. Rebolj,

You make very good points as usual and I thank you for your contributions to 
the new 3D road model. 

For item #1, the optional volume and area attributes are indeed redundant, but 
are provided for XSLT reporting which is a very poor computational environment. 
A convenience for design reports since LandXML is now used a great deal for 
that purpose. Design software should import the geometry and calculate the area 
and volumes independent of the attribute values. 

For item #2, closedArea attribute name makes more sense since it is hard to 
have an "open" volume. An error I will correct. 

For item #3, several software vendors do use it and until we are comfortable 
with the new 3D road model in LandXML-1.1, I would suggest keeping until all 
vendors have a chance to upgrade to the 1.1 specification. 

For item#4, We have held off on voting to ratify LandXML-1.1 until more sample 
files can be produced and reviewed by all. I should have many new 1.1 samples 
(with the new 3D road model) within the next month or so. Once we settle on the 
1.1 schema we can update the SDK to support it.

Best Regards,
 
Nathan Crews
www.landxml.org
 

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: landxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Danijel Rebolj 
        Sent: Mon 9/19/2005 6:34 AM 
        To: landxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
        Cc: 'Podbreznik Peter'; DuÅan Zalar 
        Subject: [LandXML] DesignCrossSectSurf in LandXML 1.1
        
        
        Dear LandXML community,
         
        Since we are strongly interested in (3D) object oriented road model, 
we're very pleased with the LandXML 1.1 proposal. Already in 2002 we have 
proposed to have the definitions of cross section elements in CrossSect rather 
then in the GradeModel, where they've landed after lots of discussions. And now 
we've got the DesignCrossSectSurfs in CrossSect! Great!
         
        In general we find the new DesignCrossSectSurfs element very good, but 
there are still some minor questions and proposals:

        1.      area and volume of DesignCrossSectSurf can be easily 
calculated. To have them as attributes can be a source of inconsistency. Is it 
neccesseary to have them? 
        2.      Wouldn't it be more consistent to have an attribute named 
closedArea in DesignCrossSectSurf instead of closedVolume? (But I agree, 
closedVolume gives a better idea of the meaning of the DesignCrossSectSurf 
element.) 
        3.      Probably nobody has used ZoneCrossSectStructure in GradeModel, 
therefore we suggest to delete it from Zone in 1.1. Otherwise it will only lead 
to confusion and would decrease the clearness of the schema. Our opinion is we 
should wipe out obsolete elements. Imagine how might the 8.7 schema look like 
otherwise. 
        4.      What is the schedule plan for 1.1 launching? (including 1.1 sdk)

        Thanks to the developer team for the efforts and best regards to all
        Danijel Rebolj
         
         
        
        
        ______________________________________
        Dr. Danijel Rebolj
        Professor of Construction and transportation informatics
        Vice-dean, Head of the Construction IT Centre 
        University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering 
        Smetanova 17, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia 
        e_mail: Danijel.Rebolj@xxxxxxxxx, http://fg.uni-mb.si/ 
<http://fg.uni-mb.si/>  
        Tel. : +386 2 229-4381, Fax.: +386 2 252-4179 

Other related posts: