OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

Comments on: Emergency Data Exchange Language (EDXL) Tracking of Emergency Clients (TEC) Client Registry Exchange Version 1.0

  • 1.  Comments on: Emergency Data Exchange Language (EDXL) Tracking of Emergency Clients (TEC) Client Registry Exchange Version 1.0

    Posted 08-21-2014 00:32
    To: EM TC and commentators, We received two public review comments on the TEC Client Registry Exchange spec (both I believe shortly after the close of the public comment period) -- see http://markmail.org/search/?q=TEC&q=list%3Aorg.oasis-open.lists.emergency-comment#query:TEC%20list%3Aorg.oasis-open.lists.emergency-comment+page:1+mid:olncwrozultb5amc+state:results  (from Patrick Durusau) and http://markmail.org/search/?q=TEC&q=list%3Aorg.oasis-open.lists.emergency-comment#query:TEC%20list%3Aorg.oasis-open.lists.emergency-comment+page:1+mid:ous2mvima4srwl44+state:results  (from JD Hamilton ) .  I am using this email to acknowledge and respond to these comments. I hope this is sufficient since I am unable to comment directly on the JIRA TAB pages for each issue, nor can I send a response to each email comment via MarkMail (I can only view comments in that system). I am copying the OASIS EM-TC since I plan to raise these issues and my response as outlined below at an upcoming TC meeting. I am also copying the EM-TEC subcommittee so that it can consider these comments when it develops the next version of the EDXL-TEC Client Registry Exchange specification (possibly at, or subsequent to, the time when it develops the companion EDXL-TEC Client Tracking Exchange specification). I'm also copying Ka-Ping Yee, the author of PFIF, in case he wishes to provide any responses to help guide the future work of the committees. My responses; JD Hamilton's comment related to RIM issues appears misdirected -- perhaps it was meant to attach to a different specification.  With respect to the comment from Patrick Durusau (with an attached spreadsheet containing 16 issues), I plan to defer most of these, and make only insubstantial changes to the public review document -- namely, I plan to fix a typo ("TREC" -> "TEC") and possibly update any bad/non-optimal links, A primary goal in producing this initial version was to mirror as close as possible the PFIF 1.4 specification, which is in public use, and I think this initial version accomplishes that task. And while many of the issues, particularly those related to normative vs. non-normative nomenclature, seem to me worthwhile for the committee to consider in a future version, I believe this version makes it clear that conformance and interoperability (which in this context means being able to create and parse an EDXL Client Registry document), hinge on a document having the required elements as stated in Section 5. Also, non-document conformance issues (e.g., retention and/or deletion of records) are possibly matters of policy, and the TC can decide at a later date whether any these matters should be marked as normative and defined accordingly. Tony Mancuso