MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Talking Point re CAP and CEA "Public Alert"
Bob, do any of us really have time to split hairs about the word
"compatible" in this context?
The folks at the Weather Service, the folks at the FCC and the folks
at CEA have all expressed satisfaction that CAP is compatible with
their existing systems... in that they can co-exist and interoperate
in a constructive and (relatively) convenient way. (Please remember
that most of the policy- and decision-makers involved in warning
systems aren't computer-business folk and don't necessarily use words
in their most technical sense.)
Of course, if you aren't comfortable using the word, you don't have
to. And if you'd like to offer a suggestion of a better word, feel
free.
- Art
At 8:16 PM -0400 4/8/04, Bob Wyman wrote:
>Art Botterell wrote:
>> We're the new guys on the block, and we're taken pains
>> to be compatible with the old established systems.
> There is that "compatible" word again... I was surprised to
>see it at the bottom of Art's message since everything up to that
>point seemed to be acknowledging that CAP *was not* compatible with
>existing systems and explaining why it wasn't compatible. (Note: Not
>being compatible is *not* a negative thing. It is just a statement of
>fact.)
> So, can you please explain what is meant by "compatible"? The
>usage here is foreign to me and doesn't seem to conform to either my
>experience or the definitions given in the dictionaries that I use.
> Perhaps there is some intent to indicate a non-syntactical
>compatibility. i.e. While the syntaxes, message formats, etc. are
>incompatible, there is some attempt to remain "compatible" in terms of
>concepts, philosophy, etc. Is this what you're getting at? If so, I
>think it would be better to say that. "Compatibility" in the computer
>business is usually a question of syntax and format -- not concept. My
>concern is that if this apparently "unusual" usage of the word
>"compatible" continues, people may come to think that the CAP TC is
>making promises that can't be kept. Or, they might just assume that it
>simply is not much of an advance over what has been traditionally
>available. (i.e. if CAP *was* compatible with EAS, etc. then it
>*couldn't* be very different from them.)... This would not be good.
>
> bob wyman
>
>