OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

Re: [emergency] Unique Message Identifiers in CAP

  • 1.  Re: [emergency] Unique Message Identifiers in CAP

    Posted 03-27-2004 21:12
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

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


    Subject: Re: [emergency] Unique Message Identifiers in CAP


    At 9:44 AM -0500 3/27/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
    >>With equal respect, I'm not sure we all know enough about each 
    >>others' experiences for any of us to claim superior standing on 
    >>that basis.
    >
    >As well you shouldn't, which is what prompted the need for me to 
    >make the statement.
    
    Um... actually I was talking about your implication that only you 
    (and perhaps a few of your buddies) have ever built systems to 
    standards before.  Many others of us have, many times over many 
    years, and I really think the members of this TC deserve more respect 
    and less personal agenda from their Chair.
    
    - Art
    
    
    
    At 9:44 AM -0500 3/27/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
    >On Mar 26, 2004, at 6:48 PM, Art Botterell wrote:
    >
    >>At 4:59 PM -0500 3/26/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
    >>>With all due respect, there is a dimension to building systems 
    >>>that support standards, and therefore building standards that can 
    >>>be supported, that not everyone has experience with nor are they 
    >>>expected to.
    >>
    >>With equal respect, I'm not sure we all know enough about each 
    >>others' experiences for any of us to claim superior standing on 
    >>that basis.
    >
    >As well you shouldn't, which is what prompted the need for me to 
    >make the statement.
    >
    >>>An interface is built, however it is impossible to connect with 
    >>>other systems in a standard (official) way as that means of 
    >>>connection has not been defined.
    >>
    >>Well, as mentioned earlier, isn't that really an Infrastructure issue?
    >
    >It is an issue that the IF SC has been assigned to provide 
    >information back on, which that have done to some degree. It is 
    >certainly, as I think you are implying, time to take next steps with 
    >that now that CAP 1.0 is finished from a content standpoint.
    >
    >>Anyway, seems like DMIS is fairly "official"... unless what we 
    >>really mean by that is "our own"... and quite a number of folks 
    >>have managed to connect successfully to that.  Have you tried it?
    >
    >That is not the issue. Do not confuse "official", as in something 
    >built by someone, with something that has been through the OASIS 
    >process via the EM TC. DMIS, as it pertains to the EM TC, is not 
    >official.
    >
    >>>  Your ethical responsibility as a standards developer is to put a 
    >>>usable standard out there for people to implement, and then seek 
    >>>to improve it.
    >>
    >>Guess I'm not clear on what your criterion for "usable" is.  A 
    >>number of folks are using the CAP format right now... several of 
    >>them daily and in significant volume.
    >
    >I am, in as simply a way as I know how to say, referring to two 
    >completely different systems who did NOT have offline conversations 
    >being able to exchange CAP alerts. An analogy would be point to 
    >supporting HTML (author/user agent).
    >
    >>Again, I think what you're talking about isn't the CAP messaging 
    >>format but some other Infrastructure standard that we've yet to 
    >>devise.  Perhaps eventually it could all be rolled together into 
    >>something that came closer to your preferred definition of 
    >>"protocol",
    >
    >Yes, that is what I am saying. If you want to call it an 
    >Infrastructure standard, or whatever, that is fine. As I have stated 
    >before, how this situation manifests itself into a normative and 
    >actionable state in terms of a standard can vary, but right now I 
    >consider that secondary to acknowledging and continuing to work 
    >on/discuss the technical details.
    >
    >>but we'll have to get the missing bits before that becomes an option.
    >
    >Not sure what you mean by this - "missing bits." Just look at the 
    >DMIS implementation that people connected to. Talk all the 
    >discussions that happened, what was the technical result of those 
    >discussions, plus all the lessons learned and you have a great start 
    >on turing this into something official, which takes care of my 
    >issues as well as others who have expressed them.
    >
    >>- Art
    >>
    >>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
    >>roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
    >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
    
    


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