OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] Fwd: CAP Implimentation inCompassLDE

  • 1.  Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] Fwd: CAP Implimentation inCompassLDE

    Posted 08-06-2004 13:32
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] Fwd: CAP Implimentation inCompassLDE


    Rex et al :
    It may be possible to address these requirements as an extension of the
    joint E-Government / ebXMLRegistry Tc effort that aims to publish best
    practices around collaborative development of content.
    
    finest regards
    Carl Mattocks
    
    <quote who="Rex Brooks">
    > Thanks, Allen,
    >
    > It looks like the time has come to address this overall issue. I
    > uploaded a general presentation on WSS, borrowed from the WSRP TC
    > which is one of several areas of concern that all intersect in this
    > specific issue of establishing trust networks. In this case the area
    > is web services. In line with the various transport-specific
    > requirements, we might want to consider gathering requirements for an
    > EM-specific registry, especially in the context of developing the
    > message-wrapper for setting context(s). A great deal of work has
    > already been done in ebXML and UDDI, so we are far from starting from
    > a zero point.
    >
    > I was going to upload the presentations and discussions we have been
    > having this week for related issues in security in the WSRP meetings,
    > but they have gotten too specific to be valuable in a more general
    > context, let alone in narrowing back down to a CAP-specific
    > discussion, and we still have one more today. However, it has been
    > instructive.
    >
    > An EM Registry need not be web-only, but could have sections per
    > transport mechanism with recommendations for how to organize it to
    > list a registrant's organizational capabilities, memberships,
    > protocols/standards supported, etc. While that approach might entail
    > multiple or repeated entries where an organization spans transports,
    > it could be organized in such a way as to make establishing trust
    > relationships reliable without having too great an overhead cost.
    >
    > Regardless, such a registry would need to have the support and
    > cooperation of the governmental jurisdictional authorities from the
    > local to the international levels, but the movement toward
    > cooperation in these areas appears to be favorable, for now at least.
    >
    > Ciao,
    > Rex
    >
    > At 6:52 AM -0400 8/6/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
    >>Note that I moved this discussion over to the TC thread and took it
    >>off the Public Comment list.
    >>
    >>Also, please notice that what JD is asking is not "what's possible",
    >>but rather "what's official".
    >>
    >>On Aug 5, 2004, at 8:08 PM, David Aylward wrote:
    >>
    >>>Claude:
    >>>
    >>>Yes, but not yet in the best way, integrating the data flow into and out
    >>>of the CAD system.  Obviously that requires an interface with the CAD
    >>>system, which we are looking forward to doing soon.
    >>>
    >>>David Aylward
    >>>Director
    >>>The ComCARE Alliance
    >>>888 17th St., N.W.
    >>>Washington, DC 20006
    >>>202-429-0574 Extension 247
    >>>202-296-2962 (fax)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>