MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] Fw: [emergency] Broadcast, TV, PPW, etc.
Well put! I think the items you have outlined here should start the ball
rolling in terms of us looking deeper into broadcast/media/TV, but at
the same time not delay our current drive to get CAP out the door.
Allen
On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 14:38, CONSULTRAC wrote:
> I have been reading these threads with great interest and believe that,
> from an infrastructure perspective, some simplicity of thought may be
> useful: To whit the following questions:
>
> 1. Who are we trying to deliver CAP 1.0 messages to? Answering this
> question will orient us to the various necessary enabling mechanisms and
> infrastructures.
> 2. What are we trying to deliver? Necessary composition and format, already
> generally defined within CAP 1.0, but left open to further refinement as
> reflected by the current dialogue.
> 3. Why are we delivering these messages? Lets formally define the use
> case(s) for CAP 1.0. This will re-orient us to various infrastructures,
> payload types and requirements.
> 4. When do we need to deliver CAP 1.0 messages? This goes to the question of
> persistant, versus demand-based, infrastructure mechanisms, and/or
> capabilities.
> 5. Where do we need to deliver CAP 1.0 messages? Knowing "where" messages
> are to be delivered focuses our effort on the various available delivery
> methods and constraints.
>
> In general, however, it appears that we are trying to answer questions based
> on "thinking" rather than "knowing" what we're talking about. That clearly
> puts the cart before the horse and, in my view, is of dubious value in
> standards setting where clarity of thought and methodical attention to
> detail are most critical.
>
> I have a meeting with the folks at NDS in the morning. At that time I will
> engage them in a dialogue associated with these, and other broader
> terresteral broadcast issues. Once that relationship is initiated we will
> have an expert source available to us which we should assertively leverage
> in the dialogue related to infrastructure, message payload and transport
> delivery methods. Additionally, it is my belief that we should engage in a
> direct dialogue with the authors of the PPW letter to insure that their
> interests are clearly understood in the context of that document, in
> addition to identifying other potential "expert" knowledge-partners as
> evolve our thinking in the future.
>
> It might be useful to remember that we are engaged in a marathon not a
> sprint. The current CAP spec contains language that specifically leaves the
> schema open to further refinement as its requirements change based on our
> acquisition of "better" information. It should be apparent, therefore, that
> we won't be done any time soon, and must accept iterative development as a
> baseline. This means that at various points in time we'll either be on, or
> off, the mark depending on what we "know" versus what we "think." In my
> view, however, it is most important to settle down and methodically "figure
> it out." Otherwise, we're just a mob of "smart guys" with too much time on
> our hands.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-msg/members/leave_workgroup.php.
--
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC
emtc@nc.rr.com
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]