OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses

  • 1.  Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses

    Posted 12-29-2004 22:52
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses


    Just to add my $.02 a bit further, I don't think there is much chance 
    of us adopting a "not-invented-here" parochialism. Since a few of us 
    are trudging through the entire GJXDM to discover what and where the 
    differences are with the work we've done so far, I suspect that we 
    will most likely recommend best practices for implementors to use the 
    appropriate namespaced term.  To do that we must first do the 
    diligence of comprehensive comparison so  we can then look at 
    similarities, duplications and differences and make our 
    recommendations.
    
    And just to add a bit more, while I am keeping my mind open to 
    alternatives, I suspect we will end up settling on the use of an 
    ontological approach to making our recommendations: for uses in 
    inontology/taxonomy x, use schema a, for uses in ontology/taxonomy y, 
    use b, etc. I am personally in favor of using existing work whereever 
    it doesn't require too many extensions to cover the requirements we 
    have scoped for the particular piece of work.
    
    Ciao,
    Rex..
    
    At 1:14 PM -0800 12/29/04, Art Botterell wrote:
    >Michael, it's not my intent to disturb you.  However, I assume you'd 
    >agree that there's also a risk in trying to force what may prove to 
    >be unlike concepts into like boxes just for short-term convenience.
    >
    >We need to look carefully at the realities of the real-world 
    >applications and processes before reflexively adopting prior art 
    >just because "it was there first."  I'm sure you're not suggesting 
    >the latter approach.  Nor have I ever objected to reuse where it's 
    >appropriate.
    >
    >- Art
    >
    >
    >At 4:04 PM -0500 12/29/04, Daconta, Michael wrote:
    >>This email thread is disturbing... I would hope this TC can avoid 
    >>the "not invented here syndrome" and focus on reusing schema 
    >>elements where the concepts are equivalent or can be aligned.
    >>--------------------------
    >>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
    >>
    >>
    >>