RE: Suggestion for Aero-ML - Licence/Sensitivity
> I think the idea has merit. > > Am I correct in implying that the "sensitivity" would differ from say > the classification attributed to a particular reference document? Yes. The idea is that "sensitivity" - or perhaps more appropriately, "classification" - would apply to the model itself, not the resources that the model was derived from. > I effectively include a "sensitivity" measure in the AERO-ML data files > I create using a "variableDef", but a more formal approach may provide > better consistency when exchanging datasets. Similarly for the > "licence". > > In addition to 'name/type', would it be worth having 'refID' and > 'description' attributes associated with licence and sensitivity (or > what ever they may become)? > > Geoff Brian I think that at least for the "license" element it might be appropriate. One can list the license type as being "unlicensed", or "GPL", or some other unique license. But it is probably a good thing to list where that license is published, either online or an address where the license could be obtained. I don't know whether that location should be element content or an attribute. Jon
RE: Suggestion for Aero-ML
> Would there be merit to having an optional subelement to sensitivity, > such as classification? This would allow, if sensitivity was > 'classified' to indicate the level of classification (confidential, > secret, top secret) (at least in the US, that's how this works). > > -- Bruce Actually, perhaps "classification" would be a better element name than sensitivity. I had thought of "sensitivity" as serving the purpose you describe, to cover the level of classification. I prefer simplicity. For example: Is there a need for more detail? Jon
Re: Suggestion for Aero-ML
At 9:29 PM -0500 9/22/06, Jon S. Berndt wrote: I believe it would be desirable to have a text field in AERO-ML to specify a license for the file, and also to have a field for specifying the sensitivity (secret, classified, proprietary, etc.). I suppose that the license field could look like this: -or- For more information, see www.gnu.org/gpl I expect that the sensitivity field would simply be something like: -or- This file should only be distributed in accordance with company policy THX1138. Comments? Jon Berndt Would there be merit to having an optional subelement to sensitivity, such as classification? This would allow, if sensitivity was 'classified' to indicate the level of classification (confidential, secret, top secret) (at least in the US, that's how this works). -- Bruce
