MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















emergency message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [emergency] Talking Point re CAP and CEA "Public Alert"




From: "Walid Ramadan" <WRamadan@blue292.com>
To: "Art Botterell" <acb@incident.com>,<bob@wyman.us>,<emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:13:18 -0400






Art, I beleive the context is actually extremely important. It looks like "compatible" is being used to imply that CAP can "interoperate" with those other systems, but not "reeeeeeeeally" interoperate with them.  So which way is it? Does it or does it not? I believe the introduction of terms such as "co-exist", "constructive", and "relatively" to define "compatible" is only making the definition of "compatible" more elusive.  And given that the folks you listed are not tech-savvy, how do we ensure that their definition of "compatible" is, to use your term, "compatible" with ours? Could it be that in their minds, compatible means fully interoperable?
 
Walid