OASIS Emergency Management TC

Gary,

Oh boy - this got wildly overly complex!!!

Can we have a time out please?!?

The wantlist.xml is a simple construct used by the online NIEM SSGT.  It is REQUIRED as part of an IEPD submission for those folks who know and need IEPDs.  They are an absolutely SOB to create manually online - but having CAM create one of these for you in 30 seconds by pushing a button - is likely to make adults breakdown, laugh and cry.  Feels like cheating.

Once you have a Wantlist.xml done for you its easy to then delete and tweak as desired.  Hence the supplied base EDXL HAVE wantlist.xml uploaded earlier.  That's probably saving people days of work manually.

Now the magic is - once you have the wantlist.xml - you can have the NIEM SSGT create a subset schema for you.  Of course in the context of OASIS EDXL this is irrelevant - because you are not using it.  However 
developers of NIEM exchange schemas - normally need it.

Again - we're back to what is formally required for a valid IEPD.  A wantlist.xml, and crossreference schema, an exchange schema and a XML example instance, and you're business rules documentation.

So the good news is we can create all of these for EDXL HAVE - and that is really important for federal and state implementors who will need these things for their project documentation to justify what they are doing.

Simple - nothing more than that.

Thanks, DW

p.s. If you want to try out the SSGT with the wantlist.xml - go to this link - click on the top right "Options" - and then upload it.

http://niem.gtri.gatech.edu/niemtools/ssgt/SSGT-LoadWantList.iepd




 
 
Thanks, DW






                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                
                                                
                                            
                                        

Thanks Gary,

I've been waiting  for this connection to be made 
without me beating the drum about it.

We have to be very careful in the RIM to ensure 
that we do not create more problems than we solve 
when we attempt to make this alignment.

We are starting with the DE and the ValueListURN 
for several very basic reasons. Among those 
reasons is the fact that the DE gives us the 
functional container element for the various EDXL 
message payloads. It is important, IMO, to start 
with the DE because it came about as a response 
to the first major problem we faced after working 
CAP.

This response came about when we understood that 
one of the key rationales underlying CAP, e.g. 
that it is a transport-independent format for 
messages, was a two-way door enabling any medium 
but not specifying how to distribute those 
messages in detail.

It turned out that the DE then became the wrapper 
or header element of any EDXL payload message, 
thus setting the stage for the family of 
specifications in such a way that a de facto 
Service-Oriented Architecture was established.

Having a distribution specification that uses a 
modular-managed-list approach, which reuses those 
lists and needs a registry system of systems and 
network of networks to do this, is as close to a 
textbook example of SOA as we are likely to find.

The RIM should make this SOA explicit. NIEM is 
also a de facto SOA, but because it has not yet 
been strongly framed in this context, we have to 
be careful not to fall into the trap of pushing 
the issue of establishing an underlying 
architecture off because it is not currently 
reflected in NIEM as a major component concept, 
at least not as a fundamental end-to-end 
principle.

More importantly, we should avoid formalizing a 
framework (architecture) that is not explicitly 
SOA in order to avoid any future conflict as SOA 
is adopted by the marketplace as the dominant IT 
architecture for the next few decades.

In the upcoming NIEM Training Event, with which 
the EM Adoption TC will be colocating the 
"Emergency Interoperability Summit" there are 
only four presentations that deal with SOA 
explicitly unless you count the one on the 
Justice Reference Architecture (JRA) which is 
based on the OASIS SOA Reference Model. However, 
I expect to see that expand over the next several 
years because:
1. It builds on an existing base in the Federal 
Enterprise Architecture (FEA); and,
2. It's just plain sensible and has a lot of 
momentum going for it, despite the industry 
scramble to "own" the SOA mantle by hyping a 
bunch of short-lived acronyms and buzz words.

Cheers,
Rex

At 7:15 AM -0400 7/15/09, Gary Ham wrote:
>David,
>
>My understanding of the IEPD process is that a 
>wantlist is required only for brand new 
>elements.  Reuse of an approved external 
>standard does not require a wantlist. In fact it 
>would be confusing because it would appear that 
>we are submitting individual HAVE elements for 
>inclusion in the NIEM vice HAVE as a whole. The 
>wantlist is for LOCAL data structures that have 
>not been standardized and need to be. We do not 
>have to create a wantlist for the HAVE standard. 
> Just get it approved as an external standard 
>and define a NIEM adapter.
>
>You may be confused because the subschema 
>generator uses the same "wantlist" format for 
>storing the items you need out of NIEM prior to 
>generating the one ore more subset schemas that 
>you build in order back the specific (separately 
>name spaced) reference schema that you use for 
>your exchange schema.  But, you do not need to 
>submit a "wantlist" separately for elements that 
>the subschema generator can build for you. Just 
>for the new stuff. And approved external 
>standards are not new stuff. In fact, the HAVE 
>schema with its adapter is actually just another 
>subset schema as far as the IEPD process goes.
>
>The larger question is alignment of our RIM with 
>NIEM, which is a RIM of its own.  We may need to 
>think about something there, because there could 
>be value in aligning basic constructs. But my 
>warning is simple:  "there be monsters 
>lurking!!!!"  It is not simple at all.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Gary
>
>
>From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:28 PM
>To: Gary Ham
>Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Timothy Grapes'; 'Lee Tincher'
>Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?
>
>Gary,
>
>Oh boy - this got wildly overly complex!!!
>
>Can we have a time out please?!?
>
>The wantlist.xml is a simple construct used by 
>the online NIEM SSGT.  It is REQUIRED as part of 
>an IEPD submission for those folks who know and 
>need IEPDs.  They are an absolutely SOB to 
>create manually online - but having CAM create 
>one of these for you in 30 seconds by pushing a 
>button - is likely to make adults breakdown, 
>laugh and cry.  Feels like cheating.
>
>Once you have a Wantlist.xml done for you its 
>easy to then delete and tweak as desired.  Hence 
>the supplied base EDXL HAVE wantlist.xml 
>uploaded earlier.  That's probably saving people 
>days of work manually.
>
>Now the magic is - once you have the 
>wantlist.xml - you can have the NIEM SSGT create 
>a subset schema for you.  Of course in the 
>context of OASIS EDXL this is irrelevant - 
>because you are not using it.  However 
>developers of NIEM exchange schemas - normally need it.
>
>Again - we're back to what is formally required 
>for a valid IEPD.  A wantlist.xml, and 
>crossreference schema, an exchange schema and a 
>XML example instance, and you're business rules 
>documentation.
>
>So the good news is we can create all of these 
>for EDXL HAVE - and that is really important for 
>federal and state implementors who will need 
>these things for their project documentation to 
>justify what they are doing.
>
>Simple - nothing more than that.
>
>Thanks, DW
>
>p.s. If you want to try out the SSGT with the 
>wantlist.xml - go to this link - click on the 
>top right "Options" - and then upload it.
>
>

Over time a great deal of disinformation and misinterpreted
information has led people astray.  Bottom line is following the process you
outline and creating these artifacts for HAVE will create an IEPD that is
non-compliant and not interoperable with the OASIS standard.  If some of these
artifacts are needed for valid reasons (analysis etc.) and CAM can help, fine. 
However, people take info like this and run with it under false pretenses.  We’ve
seen it many times.  The OASIS standards are not perfect and we’ll all work on
that, but in the meantime the OASIS standard is the standard and NIEM is not
for those specific functional exchange areas supporting emergency and disaster
response and management.  



The governance and process being worked for the EM domain
between S&T and FEMA with OASIS is attempting to help bridge NIEM and EDXL,
such that EDXL becomes NIEM compliant.  The adaptor pointing to the EDXL
standard facilitates this, and maintenance of an EM data dictionary may assist both
EDXL and the building of other IEPD’s.  However the results of the process
below results in NIEM IEPD’s that are not  EDXL compliant (at least at this
juncture).  Those federal and state implementers and NIEM management need to
understand this.





Thanks,

Tim Grapes

Evotec



"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt"

- Henry J. Kaiser









From: David RR Webber
(XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]

Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:28 PM

To: Gary Ham

Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Timothy Grapes'; 'Lee Tincher'

Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?









Gary,











Oh boy - this got wildly overly complex!!!











Can we have a time out please?!?











The wantlist.xml is a simple construct used by the online NIEM
SSGT.  It is REQUIRED as part of an IEPD submission for those folks who
know and need IEPDs.  They are an absolutely SOB to create manually online
- but having CAM create one of these for you in 30 seconds by pushing a button
- is likely to make adults breakdown, laugh and cry.  Feels like cheating.











Once you have a Wantlist.xml done for you its easy to then delete
and tweak as desired.  Hence the supplied base EDXL HAVE wantlist.xml
uploaded earlier.  That's probably saving people days of work manually.











Now the magic is - once you have the wantlist.xml - you can have
the NIEM SSGT create a subset schema for you.  Of course in the context of
OASIS EDXL this is irrelevant - because you are not using it.
 However 





developers of NIEM exchange schemas - normally need it.











Again - we're back to what is formally required for a valid IEPD.
 A wantlist.xml, and crossreference schema, an exchange schema and a XML
example instance, and you're business rules documentation.











So the good news is we can create all of these for EDXL HAVE - and
that is really important for federal and state implementors who will need these
things for their project documentation to justify what they are doing.











Simple - nothing more than that.











Thanks, DW











p.s. If you want to try out the SSGT with the wantlist.xml - go to
this link - click on the top right "Options" - and then upload it.











http://niem.gtri.gatech.edu/niemtools/ssgt/SSGT-LoadWantList.iepd





























 





 





Thanks, DW









                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original Message --------

Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?

From: "Gary Ham" <hamgva@cox.net>

Date: Tue, July 14, 2009 6:14 pm

To: "'Lee Tincher'" <ltincher@evotecinc.com>, "'David RR
Webber (XML)'"

<david@drrw.info>

Cc: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>, "'Timothy Grapes'"

<tgrapes@evotecinc.com>









Lee is correct, but did not fully explain the reasoning in my mind.
The NIEM NDR recognizes that differences in context are inevitable, and even
valuable. These differences in context are encapsulated in different name
spaces and even different standards organizations.  This encapsulation is
very important because it facilitates maintenance and change as standards are
updated and improved (or even abandoned for better alternatives). 
Enforced integration introduces rigidity and mutual dependencies to the point
that brittle structures are created that destroy growth and innovation. 
The point is that we need to recognize each other, and make use of each others
capabilities through mapping and combined (aggregated) exchange schemas, but
not try to combine incompatible reference schemas.  The combined reference
schema is a path that has been tried over and over again in one form or
another, always with eventual failure.  The NIEM federated approach (using
adapters) is a breath of fresh air, because it allows encapsulation to work.  





 





So, if you are indeed trying to create a wantlist from a defined
context to be inserted in the NIEM context, you are essentially following the same
road as a programmer who does a code cut-and-paste from one code module to
another and then faces the difficult task of maintaining the same logic in both
modules.  It is a daunting task, particularly because NIEM naming rules
WILL require you to modify the items in your wantlist to some extent. 
 So now you will have to maintain two almost the same, but slightly
different structures, in two different maintenance schedules (NIEM and OASIS)
and try to keep them consistent. OUCH!  





 





So, lets use NIEM’s excellent encapsulation concepts and only reuse
data structures that are exactly the same in meaning AND structure.
 According to the NIEM coursework and the NIEM Naming and Design Rules,
what I am advocating is indeed the proper NIEM way, which is why I support NIEM.





 





Respectfully,





 



Gary A. Ham

http://grandpaham.com

703-899-6241

Grandpa can do IT!



 





 





Gary A. Ham

http://grandpaham.com

703-899-6241

Grandpa can do IT!





 













From: Lee
Tincher [mailto:ltincher@evotecinc.com]

Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:19 PM

To: 'David RR Webber (XML)'; 'Gary
Ham'

Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org;
'Timothy Grapes'

Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE
and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?







 





Actually – Gary is supporting the stance I have been trying to
get across – we do not need a wantlist – We created a HAVE adapter and
submitted it to NIEM.  That approach supports federation of
namespaces…re-creating HAVE from a wantlist does not, it promotes integration,
which will not work as the standards would not be able to exchange between each
other….





 







Thanks,





Lee





 





"I was wondering why that Frisbee was getting bigger - then
it hit me."







 









From: David
RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]

Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:53 PM

To: Gary Ham

Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org;
'Lee Tincher'; 'Timothy Grapes'

Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE
and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?









 







Gary,









 









Good thoughts.









 









Attached is a revised wantlist.xml for EDXL HAVE / NIEM  









 









I found on closer inspection that there were things the earlier
iteration from the weekend missed.









 









Plus I've attached a copy of the EDXL-dictionary.xml - for all
domains used.









 









You can drag and drop that into Excel and it opens as a
spreadsheet - and then filter on namespace add desired.









 









Enjoy, DW