MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sia-pilot6] [emergency] EDXL-DE routing and valueListUrn
I don't think Carl misunderstood that different valueListUrns are
possible. Of course, I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I think Carl's
concern is that some people may think that Dave's proposal was for a
single valueListUrn. I do not think Dave is doing that. I think Dave
is responding to the call for various groups to start producing,
publishing and maintaining these necessary valueListUrns so that we
can start using them in EDXL_DE routed messages.
All of the international groups and constituencies mentioned need to
be informed that it is now incumbent upon them to provide these
semantic resources so that their systems, be they SensorNets or
weatherAlerts, can be properly connected through our Emergency
Response Networks.
Ciao,
Rex
At 5:00 PM -0700 3/20/06, Ellis, David wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C64C7A.707355BB"
>
>Carl
>
>All of scenarios you have proposed could use seperate
>valueListUrn to control distribution of data within defined Area of
>Responsiblities. If transfer of data is needed between these AORs,
>methods for exchanging messages are avaiable. When can we talk
>about this. I believe all of your domain issues are potential
>misunderstandings how routing is accomplished.
>
>David E. Ellis
>Information Management Architect
>(505) 844-6697
>
>
>From: Carl Reed OGC Account [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org]
>Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 4:20 PM
>To: Ellis, David; SIA Pilot-6; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: Harry Haury; Haleftiras, Pericles; Glaser, Ronald
>Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL-DE routing and valueListUrn
>
>David -
>
>While I understand the urgency and while I do not necessarily disagree with
>the contents of your slides on a National Effort for Emergency Data
>Distribution, I would like to add a few words of caution.
>
>First, what you have outlined are uses cases and requirements for one domain
>of use - alerts as related to secure US DoD sensor nets. I deal with folks
>doing sensor systems and networks in a number of other countries - all
>civilian. Any of these applications using sensors can create alerts. For
>example, a new water portal in Canada that will send alerts based on stream
>flow gauges, traffic alerts being generated by the new generation of ITS
>capabilities, weather alerts, and systems function alerts being generated by
>transducers, and so forth. We cannot loose sight of all the other potential
>use cases that drives the requirements for EDXL - now and in the future.
>
>Second, and related to the first, is the fact that OASIS is an international
>standards organization. As such, we cannot ignore requirements for using
>EDXL that may be extremely viable in other countries. It is unfortunate that
>we have had little input from organizations in other countries that have
>requirements similar to the US DoD. That is why I am very pleased with the
>progress of the Sensor Standards Harmonization work that NIST is
>spearheading.
>
>Third, we would be remiss in ignoring the potential for alerts coming from
>the emerging sensor nets being designed, built, and fairly recently deployed
>for home systems and office buildings (office sensor networks are much more
>mature). See
><http://www.usipv6.com/CES_Presentations/CES_Itaru_Mimura.pdf>http://www.usipv6.com/CES_Presentations/CES_Itaru_Mimura.pdf
>as
>well as all the work being done at UCLA (SOS) and Sun (SUN SPOT). These
>systems are envisioned as being able to automatically generate alerts (fire,
>carbon monoxide, health, etc).
>
>Finally, and anyone (someone) correct me if I am wrong, but perhaps the
>COMCARE EPAD system would be a repository/registry solution.
>
>So, I agree that current DHS and DoD requirements are very valid and those
>requirements must be answered by EDXL. But let's make sure we remain
>balanced in our approach so that other communities outside DoD and DHS are
>also fairly represented at that CAP and EDXL have used well beyond.
>
>Cheers
>
>Carl
>
>