OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

  • 1.  CAP 1.2 numbering?

    Posted 04-26-2009 21:38 
    Alas, it appears we're asked for yet another uncomfortable compromise for entirely non-technical reasons.  

I'm told that at the NAB convention in Las Vegas last week, Tom Beers of the FCC expressed some concern about using CAP 1.2 because the Commission's Report and Order on EAS specified CAP 1.1.  ("Technology advances, but Law persists.")  He reportedly suggested calling it "CAP 1.1a" instead.

I'm not much of stickler about numbering schemes, myself, as long as things can be differentiated.  Under the circumstances, does anyone see any insurmountable problem with calling the next version either "1.1a" or perhaps "1.1.01"?

- Art


Art Botterell, Manager
Community Warning System
Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
50 Glacier Drive
Martinez, California 94553
(925) 313-9603
fax (925) 646-1120


  • 2.  Re: [emergency] CAP 1.2 numbering?

    Posted 04-27-2009 00:57 
    > I'm told that at the NAB convention in Las Vegas last week, Tom Beers of the FCC expressed some
> concern about using CAP 1.2 because the Commission's Report and Order on EAS specified CAP 1.1. 
> ("Technology advances, but Law persists.")  He reportedly suggested calling it "CAP 1.1a" instead.

The R&O also did not mention the IPAWS profile which presumably will also be a requirement.  So while the R&O may not be followed to the letter, adopting the IPAWS Profile using CAP 1.2 will certainly respect the intent.  I imagine DHS/FEMA could also request an ammendment to the R&O to bring it up-to-date, perhaps filling in some other important details for the broadcast community as well.

-- 
jake@jpw.biz
--


  • 3.  Re: [emergency] CAP 1.2 numbering?

    Posted 04-27-2009 13:20 
    According to my interpretation of the OASIS Naming Guidelines Part 2: 
Metadata and Versioning 
http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata.html#version 
this would be 1.1.1. It is covered, so I suspect this is what we 
should do, but I am copying Mary McRae and ask that she review this.

Cheers,
Rex

At 2:37 PM -0700 4/26/09, Art Botterell wrote:
>Alas, it appears we're asked for yet another uncomfortable 
>compromise for entirely non-technical reasons. 
>
>I'm told that at the NAB convention in Las Vegas last week, Tom 
>Beers of the FCC expressed some concern about using CAP 1.2 because 
>the Commission's Report and Order on EAS specified CAP 1.1. 
>("Technology advances, but Law persists.")  He reportedly suggested 
>calling it "CAP 1.1a" instead.
>
>I'm not much of stickler about numbering schemes, myself, as long as 
>things can be differentiated.  Under the circumstances, does anyone 
>see any insurmountable problem with calling the next version either 
>"1.1a" or perhaps "1.1.01"?
>
>- Art
>
>
>Art Botterell, Manager
>Community Warning System
>Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
>50 Glacier Drive
>Martinez, California 94553
>(925) 313-9603
>fax (925) 646-1120
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670


Related Content