Gary,
That's a good round up.
Yes - if we had it to do over - probably better to clarify the CIQ/NIEM core overlap - but that's not really our foul - NIEM kinda pinched those CIQ items and did not tell anyone! ; -)
Our mistake - their fault...
Anyway - I'm not concerned - I believe we are in an honest and good place. Primarily because the goal and vision overall is better, easier, quicker interoperability - and on all those counts - I like what we have done with EDXL HAVE.
Back to the "wantlist.xml" - yeah - they are not winning prizes for naming it that - but that name is here to stay - its too widely socialized and in too many places now.
The bottom line is bureaucratic. NIEM IEPD is now part of the authorited mandated process for government exchanges - and so you gotta have a wantlist.xml - while the purests may wring their hands and tut, tut - I'm pragmatically giving people a wantlist.xml that they can turn in - will pass muster with the SSGT - and yes - we (aka OASIS) know - you are not going to try and shoehorn a subset schema from that wantlist - back into EDXL HAVE - no need - that exchange schema is already done for you. BTW - same thing for LEXS schema - so we can point to that prescedent there too - that DOJ/ICE developed.
As I said - no harm, no foul.
We have people using OASIS EDXL HAVE as we intended - they get to submit their IEPD and get funding and approval for their project.
As you noted - my main focus is future exchanges. We are smarter and can do them better next time. Meanwhile testing and validating the tooling with our existing schemas is an important part of that positioning process.
Thanks, DW