MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: [CAP] [emergency] NOAA Undermining International Standards?
Thanks Elysa,
Every bit of information is helpful in this situation. My primary
concern follows Art's to the extent that a large constituency of
possible developers may inadvertently elect not to implement the
instructions field because NOAA doesn't and NOAA may be as far as
they look for guidance. This is particularly inappropriate for
HazCollect. Organizational and social procedures aside, we still have
to accept and deal with human nature, and short of an overriding
necessity to supply information, the maxim 'when in doubt, leave it
out,' is especially true for software built to standards in an age
where codebloat is ubiquitous.
Cheers,
Rex
At 10:26 AM -0500 6/2/06, Elysa Jones wrote:
>Lee,
>
>I have been watching this issue unfold for several years - it is not
>new. Art and I made a request of NOAA over a year ago at the IPAWS
>conference to provide the details of how their implementation was
>different so that the OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee
>so it could be evaluated in light of the CAP 1.1 update. This
>information was not forthcoming nor has any method tried so far to
>discuss this in an open consensus based format. Although Art and I
>have not talked about this recently, I assume he wanted to get this
>in the open space before the OAT because his efforts to be heard
>from a part of the team have been to no avail.
>
>The NOAA implementation chooses not to use an optional field. Given
>that protective action measures are commonly stored in that field,
>NOAA has no place to prescribe such actions. I am not sure of their
>reason for this implementation detail although it is my
>understanding that it is in part due to deficiencies in the legacy
>equipment which with they must work and possibly due to their lack
>of familiarity with protective actions for NON-weather emergencies.
>In any case, their choice to not use an optional field does not make
>them non-compliant, just not interoperable with systems built along
>the intent of the fields.
>
>I am pursuing OASIS guidance on this issue and will pass along what I receive.
>
>Regards,
>Elysa Jones, Chair
>OASIS EM-TC
>Engineering Program Manager
>Warning Systems, Inc.
>256-880-8702 x102
>
>
>At 07:43 AM 6/2/2006, Lee Tincher wrote:
>>Rex,
>>
>>Although I understand and agree with the technical aspects of Arts point I
>>must respectfully disagree with the approach you outline to rectify it. I
>>am not certain that this is outside the bounds of OASIS other than to
>>possibly make a statement that the proposed implementation is not truly CAP
>>compliant.
>>
>>As I understand it HazCollect is currently in Operational Acceptance Testing
>>and Art is a member of the OAT team. Wouldn't HazCollect OAT be a more
>>appropriate place to bring up this issue?
>>
>>I would like to ask Elysa to weigh in on this to see if this is an
>>appropriate discussion by OASIS guidelines.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Lee
>>
>>