MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: Question on EDXL-DE schema
Thanks Elysa,
I appreciate the clarification.
Regards,
Rex
At 6:29 AM -0600 1/22/06, Elysa Jones wrote:
>Rex and others,
>
>Yes we did vote on the spec as indicated in the posted draft meeting
>notes. The documentation was presented to OASIS for submittal. I
>provided the documents just as we reviewed them in that meeting.
>There were no corrections that came in after the call. However,
>OASIS came back and requested a "red-lined" version of the changes.
>As you know, we reviewed a document without red lines but with a
>supplemental document that identified each and every change. This
>is apparently not the approved submittal format for a 15-day review
>so, Patti is working to get the document in that form.
>
>I am glad this validation issue came up before the actual submittal
>and it needs to be worked out before the document is posted.
>Depending on the change(s) necessary, we may also have to vote on it
>again. As we have agreed in the TC, it is more important to get it
>right than get it out there with errors. We will have our regular
>full TC meeting on Tuesday 1/24 and will address any remaining
>issues. Also, OASIS has schema experts that we can query about this
>issue if it is warranted.
>
>Regards,
>Elysa
>
>At 04:03 PM 1/20/2006, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>Hi Folks,
>>
>>Can someone clarify the status of the spec at this point? I had to
>>leave a bit before the end of the last TC meeting, and I thought we
>>were pretty much done. That would make this thread moot. Is that
>>incorrect?
>>
>>I tried to trace the thread back to get clarification that way, but
>>I got confused. I think that we may have had a case of one or
>>another of the comments being based on an incorrect "current"
>>version. I would really like to know where we stand at this point.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Rex
>>
>>At 6:35 PM -0700 1/19/06, Ellis, David wrote:
>>>Art, Renato
>>>
>>>At this point the SSIWG can define prototype location schema for
>>>sensor content objects and evaluate them be assigning these
>>>elements a "testing" namespace. This will allow continued
>>>exploration of needed functionallity.
>>>
>>>Once experiments have validated best elements structure (e.g.DoD
>>>and DNDO experiments), the SSIWG could recommend either addition
>>>of needed elements via EDXL-SS using the namespace=##other
>>>elements in current EDXL-DE or propose additions of content object
>>>elements for future versions of EDXL-DE.
>>>
>>>David E. Ellis
>>>Information Management Architect
>>>(505) 844-6697
>>>
>>>
>>>From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com]
>>>Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 5:30 PM
>>>To: Renato Iannella
>>>Cc: Emergency_Mgt_TC TC; Mark Carlson - Conneva, Inc.
>>>Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: Question on EDXL-DE schema
>>>
>>>I had occasion to revisit the notes on digital signatures and
>>>encryption in the CAP 1.1 spec... sections 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2
>>>respectively. This was the language contributed by Bob Wyman, and
>>>now that I'm getting around to addressing some of those issues, it
>>>seems workable, concise and unambiguous. Maybe it would give us
>>>some guidance on how to express what we're trying to do here.
>>>
>>>Meanwhile, I understand that several folks are playing with
>>>experimental extensions that they may or may not propose for
>>>ratification later. Might it make sense to create two versions of
>>>the schema... a strict one to go in the spec, and an
>>>"experimentors' edition" (with the "##anys") in an application
>>>note or whatever?
>>>That way maybe we could encourage experimentation without diluting
>>>the spec itself.
>>>
>>>- Art
>>>
>>>
>>>On Jan 19, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Renato Iannella wrote:
>>>> On 20 Jan 2006, at 04:08, Ellis, David wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The ##other is an acceptable replacement for the ##any value
>>>>>located in the any element following the xsd:choice element.
>>>>>The intent of this element in the EDXL-DE schema is to provide
>>>>>a mechanism for signing our contentObjects. The signing
>>>>>process (refer to
>>>>><http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/>http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/)
>>>>>uses a different namespace than EDXL-DE.
>>>> My point has always been that if this is the *intent* of the
>>>>element, then that is what we need to clearly
>>>> indicate in the spec. It is used for digital signatures - full
>>>>stop. If we start to say that the *same* element can be use for
>>>>'experimental extensions' then we will have problems in the
>>>>future (guaranteed !)
>>>>
>>>> The best option to make this explicit is to reference the W3C
>>>>XML Digital Signature namespace.
>>>> All that is needed is to include the DigSig namespace at the top
>>>>of the EDXL Schema:
>>>>
>>>>xmlns:ds="<http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig>http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#
>>>>
>>>> and in the ContentObjectType, put a reference to the DigSig
>>>>Signature element:
>>>>
>>>> <xsd:element ref="ds:Signature" minOccurs="0"/>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers... Renato Iannella
>>>> National ICT Australia (NICTA)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----
>>>> This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may
>>>>contain legally
>>>> privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
>>>> use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
>>> > recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then
>>>> delete both
>>>> messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer
>>> > virus,
>>>> data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
>>>> amendment. This notice should not be removed.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>>> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
>>>>TCs in OASIS
>>>> at:
>>>><https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups..php
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
>>>at:
>>><https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php>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: 510-849-2309
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and 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: 510-849-2309
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]