> 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 t
> 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, pe
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
they may become)?
Geoff Brian
-Original Message-
From: Jon S. Berndt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2006 12:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nasa. Gov
Subject: Suggestion for Aero-ML
I believe it would be desirable to have a text field in AERO-ML to
specify a license
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.o
