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?
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 -----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 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: <license name="GNU GPL"/> -or- <license name="GNU GPL"> For more information, see www.gnu.org/gpl </license> I expect that the sensitivity field would simply be something like: <sensitivity type="proprietary"/> -or- <sensitivity type="proprietary"> This file should only be distributed in accordance with company policy THX1138. </sensitivity> Comments? Jon Berndt
