EM Messages and Notification SC

 View Only

Re: [emergency-msg] EM TC Notifications, Methods and Messaging 09-16-03 Meeting Minutes

  • 1.  Re: [emergency-msg] EM TC Notifications, Methods and Messaging 09-16-03 Meeting Minutes

    Posted 09-20-2003 19:49
     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] EM TC Notifications, Methods and Messaging 09-16-03 Meeting Minutes


    At 3:28 PM -0400 9/20/03, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
    >So they only plan on supporting CAP 1.0 then? They do not plan on
    >building their apps so they can support future versions of the standard?
    
    Don't know.  As I understand it, these and various other folks are 
    planning to deploy hardware in mass quantities.  Those devices may or 
    may not be reprogrammable once deployed.
    
    Anyway, if a standard doesn't provide some reasonable degree of 
    stability, its going to be of fairly limited value.
    
    - Art
    
    PS - That's why we put the version number in the default namespace 
    id... so folks can detect different versions and maintain backward 
    compatibility if/when there's a next version.
    
    
    >On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 14:30, Art Botterell wrote:
    >>  At 12:35 PM -0400 9/20/03, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
    >>  >If they can't resolve a URI, how do they plan on validating the message
    >>  >against a schema?
    >>
    >>  Just speculating... but I imagine they could validate against a local
    >>  cached schema... or even use a non-validating parser and handle any
    >>  resulting data errors downstream in the application.  We aren't
    >>  always talking about what we normally think of as "computers" here...
    >>  many CAP consumers will be embedded "thin" devices.
    >>
    >>  Anyway, any consumer on a one-way link will have a problem with
    >>  retrieving updates.  My understanding is that that's precisely why
    >>  the warning-systems industry is interested in a standard... because
    >>  once they start deploying firmware in commercial quantities it won't
    >>  be feasible for them to chase a moving-target schema.
    >>
    >>  Certainly we're addressing a broader user community here than in some
    >>  other OASIS projects.  Still, supporting use of CAP over one-way
    >>  channels has been one of our explicit requirements since the
    >>  beginning.  What I'm hearing here is feedback from users who care
    >>  about that particular use case and aren't persuaded that we've met
    >>  that requirement.
    >>
    >>  - Art
    >  >
    >>  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
    >
    >
    >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.
    
    


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