David,
Although I appreciate your fervent endorsement of CAM ( I use it
too – you can’t beat the price!) – CAM is but one of many tools that can
accomplish the work. There is no “one tool for all” in the world of standards.
OASIS has been discussing the option of a EM Web site for things
like Sample XML, Stylesheets and I am sure CAM files can be included…
Here’s the rub though – I do not want to be in the position of
promoting a single tool and I really do not think the entire EM TC group email
is the place for this push. If anything the Adoption Committee would be the
place to consider the options of using CAM – and RECOMMENDING it for certain uses if they agree.
I would prefer to see this
vehicle for idea exchange (the EM TC Group email list) used for discussions on
the Standards.
In addition I would heavily
question your estimates of time saved since the IEPD PROCESS is
more about requirements gathering and business driven designs than XML/XSD
development. To be a little blunt – and please forgive that, but I feel it is
time for this statement – I have been feeling that you have been “shoving CAM
down my throat”…we have many people on the TC and some have developed their own
tools or even have vendor products that are very good and very sound to support
this work. This forum is not the place to push the “one tool for all” agenda.
There is no place in a “one tool
for all” approach…a simple example could be the popularity of Spreadsheets –
they are fantastic for keeping things like Managed Lists – no other tool is any
better – unless you are in a diverse or enterprise environment and people make
several copies and edit them all differently – then they are a complete and
utter nightmare and should be removed to put in place a true Business
Intelligence tool set….this is a real world example. We cannot determine how
every standard will be used and how it should be implemented – that is counterproductive
to interoperability.
Again – I do appreciate your
enthusiasm and I think you bring a whole lot to the table for our efforts – but
I respectfully ask that you consider the intent of the vehicle before endorsing
one product so heavily and repeatedly.
Thanks,
Lee
The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think,
than what to think - rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think
for ourselves, than to load the memory with thoughts of other men. ~Bill
Beattie
From: David RR Webber
(XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 11:47 AM
To: Lee Tincher
Cc: 'Gary Ham'; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Dwarkanath,Sukumar -
INTL'; 'McGarry,Donald P.'; 'Ron Lake'; 'Ram Kumar'
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
Ease of implementation is key. That is why we have put
together all the tools in CAM for NIEM IEPDs.
This has taken an 800 hour IEPD process and made it 80 hours -
including ramp up time.
What I am envisioning for EDXL however is that creating a profile
using CAM should take one hour or less - including downloading CAM and
installing.
I'll put together some briefing slides to illustrate - along with
samples. We really can show people how to save potentially hundreds of
hours of implementation time.
This week though I'm busy finishing testing on the new release of
CAM 1.7.1 - so it will next week sometime.
Original Message
--------
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs.
Released Schemas
From: "Lee Tincher" <ltincher@evotecinc.com>
Date: Sun, March 14, 2010 8:02 am
To: "'Ron Lake'" <rlake@galdosinc.com>, "'Ram Kumar'"
<kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Gary Ham'" <gham@grandpaham.com>, "'David RR Webber
(XML)'"
<david@drrw.info>, <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>,
"'Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL'" <Sukumar_Dwarkanath@sra.com>,
"'McGarry,Donald P.'" <dmcgarry@mitre.org>
While I agree with the concepts I would urge you to be very
careful here. Gary Ham taught me many years ago the “A Standard Ai’nt a
Standard if it isn’t used”. In his white paper he focuses on ease of
implementation as a key issue. What you are describing below is a series
of best practices that should be recommendations from the Adoption
Committee. To consider this as part of the guidance of using the standard
will make many developers just turn away from it and the result will be less
implementation – thus less interoperability.
Profiles are nothing more than further restraints and element
definition enhancements/restrictions to the approved standard that need to be
understood by two or more exchange partners. By ensuring that the
“Profile” validates against the original schema than any other entity that uses
complete/original Standard Schema can consume it….sharing your “further
restrained” schema may be desirable from an implementation standpoint, but that
depends on your intended use – and we cannot assume that everyone intends to
use profiles exactly as we do….in many cases a profile will be shared between
only 2 exchange partners and no one else needs to know the restrictions
enforced by the profile….
The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think,
than what to think - rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think
for ourselves, than to load the memory with thoughts of other men. ~Bill
Beattie
From: Ron Lake [mailto:rlake@galdosinc.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:39 AM
To: Ram Kumar
Cc: Gary Ham; David RR Webber (XML); Lee Tincher;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL; McGarry,Donald P.
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
I would go farther and state that we need registries in support of
this interoperability governance - registries that manage schemas, code
lists, schema documentation etc. Simply posting schemas on a web site
(and claiming this is a registry) is NOT sufficient and it will not work.
From: Ram
Kumar [mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com]
Sent: Sun 3/14/2010 12:23 AM
To: Ron Lake
Cc: Gary Ham; David RR Webber (XML); Lee Tincher;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL; McGarry,Donald P.
Subject: Re: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
If we want to achieve interoperability, two things are required:
1. Interoperability of data - schemas are required
2. Guidelines on how the schemas should be used (what is optional,
what is not, what code lists to use, etc) to enable interoperability. This will
help the interoperating parties to use these guidelines to ensure consistent
implementation of the schemas. - This is part of interoperability governance
Therefore, using a set of schemas and expecting systems
implementing the schemas without any guidelines to ensure consistent
implementation, to interoperate is virtually impossible.
xPIL and other CIQ artifacts have been designed to be application
independent and vertical industry independent, and importantly global (ability
to handle 240+ country addresses and many name formats), it is up to the users
using these schemas to ensure that they define proper guidelines to customise
these schemas for implementation to enable interoperability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php