Rex et al,
I left David off this response to first determine whether the TC agrees with
my comment. I have also heard similar comments regarding the size of the
standards (payload size) discussed referencing the term "microformats". I
tend to use the term "profiles" here.
Setting aside David's comment regarding a query message, I believe a need
for smaller "lean and mean" messages can be accommodated in accordance with
the present HAVE standard architecture through implementation of profiles.
HAVE contains only a handful of mandatory elements, allowing implementers to
create "profiles" to suit their needs. By profiles I mean subsets of the
overall "reference schema" built in accordance with all requirements of the
specification. Put another way these are smaller "constraint" schemas built
off of the overall standard "reference schema". A profile can be any size -
very small if needed to meet a particular exchange purpose.
In the case of RM I realize the TC choose to explicitly define several of
these "profiles" (individual RM message types) within the spec. But we'll
never predict all possible needs, and the current standards do not preclude
implementations from developing their own profiles/constraint schemas - as
long as they adhere to the core standard definitions and rules.
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:11 PM
To: David RR Webber (XML)
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation
models
Hi David,
I took an action item in today's Emergency Management TC Meeting to
respond to your two messages. We did not have a quorum, but we can
vote in our next meeting after the Second 60-Day Public Review of
EDXL-HAVE has expired to accept this response as a valid resolution
to the issue presented by your Public Comment copied below.
There are two responses to this:
1. We were not tasked with scoping our work to address modern SOA and
B2B best practices; but,
2. If this were not a specification which is finishing its 2nd 60-Day
Public Review, and if critical demand for this specification had not
been repeatedly stressed upon us, (by HITSP among others) we would
consider accepting your issues.
So, for now we choose to defer. However EDXL-Resource Messaging
(EDXL-RM) actually provides the Message Exchange Patterns you
mention. It is a couple of months behind EDXL-HAVE.
We will certainly consider adding such considerations in the next
version of EDXL-HAVE, but, in our opinion, the need for it is too
great to delay it based on these considerations.
That said, since I happen to be a member of the OASIS SOA Reference
Model TC, I can appreciate your concern, but I don't think this is
nearly as much of an encumbrance as you suggest.
We would welcome your assistance in building sample CAM templates to
show how your suggestions can be done with the existing specification.
The EDXL-Resource Messaging (EDXL-RM) Specification will soon be
ready its 2nd 60-Day Public Review. EDXL-RM is based on the overall
Resource Message Type, with 16 specific Message Types.
These include a number of Requests and Responses, as well as Reports
which may become its own specification with EDXL-HAVE as a model.
I am editing the current version of EDXL-RM 1.0 which we will,
hopefully, finish at our upcoming workgroup face-to-face meetings
January 8,9,10 in Washington, D.C.
EDXL-DE 1.0 handles the Routing/Distribution of Emergency Messages
and is being implemented by the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System (IPAWS) and we are using what we learn in that effort to
provide some of the requirements for EDXL-DE 1.1.
The whole EDXL Family has at least two and maybe three more
specifications working their way through the practitioner-SME group
process that leads up to submitting it to the TC for the TC to decide
on accepting or not.
We are also planning an EDXL-Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM)
which will formalize the various kinds of messages and mechanisms in
the whole family at a more abstract level than the specifications. It
is preliminarily planned to include an RDF Schema and an OWL-DL
representation in addition to an XML Schema.
Cheers,
Rex Brooks
Subject: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
* From: "David RR Webber \(XML\)"