EM Messages and Notification SC

Hi,
	Here again is the list of CAP 1.2 changes developed from the comments work done in the fall.  The primary reason is the identified need for Avoid and AllClear and adding them could not be accomplished through the errata process.

3 - Caution/restriction against restricted, escaped, and special characters and
encoded entities in content fields
15,17-6,20,22 - New responseType values of Avoid and AllClear
16,19 - Editorial changes
27 - Clarification on acceptable values in polygon and circle elements
28 - Expand CAP examples to include update and bilingual messages

Also based on IPAWS profile work, the following changes could also be added,

- All dateTime elements should include a timezone (Art's guidelines from the IPAWS profile could be used)
- A review of the schema found 

Thanks for the recap, Jacob,

I think we will probably want to put in some quality time on the 
description of and recommendation for using EDXL-DE.

Cheers,
Rex

At 1:39 PM -0500 3/3/09, Jacob Westfall wrote:
>Hi,
>	Here again is the list of CAP 1.2 changes developed from the 
>comments work done in the fall.  The primary reason is the 
>identified need for Avoid and AllClear and adding them could not be 
>accomplished through the errata process.
>
>3 - Caution/restriction against restricted, escaped, and special 
>characters and
>encoded entities in content fields
>15,17-6,20,22 - New responseType values of Avoid and AllClear
>16,19 - Editorial changes
>27 - Clarification on acceptable values in polygon and circle elements
>28 - Expand CAP examples to include update and bilingual messages
>
>Also based on IPAWS profile work, the following changes could also be added,
>
>- All dateTime elements should include a timezone (Art's guidelines 
>from the IPAWS profile could be used)
>- A review of the schema found 

> I think we will probably want to put in some quality time on the 
> description of and recommendation for using EDXL-DE.

Yes I was wondering if some copy from the EDXL Implementation Guide could be used as a starting point?

-- 
jake@jpw.biz
--

We should be getting the version of the EDXL-DE White Paper that is 
currently being reviewed by the Emergency Interoperabiloity 
Consortium, and I think we should start with that.

Cheers,
Rex

At 10:49 AM -0500 3/5/09, Jacob Westfall wrote:
>  > I think we will probably want to put in some quality time on the
>>  description of and recommendation for using EDXL-DE.
>
>Yes I was wondering if some copy from the EDXL Implementation Guide 
>could be used as a starting point?
>
>--
>jake@jpw.biz
>--
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670

Hi Jake, Everyone,

Let's have this conversation on the list, okay?

I suggest we leave out any mention of EDXL-DE or any other possible 
requirements for CAP 2.0 because we are launching the requirements 
effort when 1.2 goes out for Public Review, despite the time it will 
take to finish 2.0.

As long as the form="qualified" does not cause validation problems, I 
think we should leave it as is.

I suggest we use Art's guidelines from the IPAWS profile for dateTime.

Can you have Working Draft 1.1.01 uploaded by the end of this week? 
If so, we can vote to send it to the TC at our next scheduled 
meeting. Be sure to change the date to March 31 including footers. It 
will become v1.2 when the TC votes on approving it as a Committee 
Draft. Make sure the EM TC is copied with the notification. 
Basically, we shootin' to have this puppy get advanced to CD01 at the 
same time as the profile is voted to become a Committee 
Specification, the step just short of seeking OASIS-wide Standard 
Approval.

Hopefully, i1.1.01 won't take up too much time and we can get back to 
EDXL-HAVE and get that puppy done in no more than two more sessions.

Cheers,
Rex

At 1:39 PM -0500 3/3/09, Jacob Westfall wrote:
>Hi,
>	Here again is the list of CAP 1.2 changes developed from the 
>comments work done in the fall.  The primary reason is the 
>identified need for Avoid and AllClear and adding them could not be 
>accomplished through the errata process.
>
>3 - Caution/restriction against restricted, escaped, and special 
>characters and
>encoded entities in content fields
>15,17-6,20,22 - New responseType values of Avoid and AllClear
>16,19 - Editorial changes
>27 - Clarification on acceptable values in polygon and circle elements
>28 - Expand CAP examples to include update and bilingual messages
>
>Also based on IPAWS profile work, the following changes could also be added,
>
>- All dateTime elements should include a timezone (Art's guidelines 
>from the IPAWS profile could be used)
>- A review of the schema found 

> I suggest we leave out any mention of EDXL-DE

I left a placeholder but no content at this point.

> As long as the form="qualified" does not cause validation problems, I 
> think we should leave it as is.

It does cause validation issues and effective is being updated with the DateTime Data Type anyways.

> I suggest we use Art's guidelines from the IPAWS profile for dateTime.

Done.  Also as suggested by Art I've added an option for XML Sig/Enc to the schema to ensure validation.

Also I recall some IPAWS profile discussion regarding "note" in the alert block.  Its currently a single instance element and I think some thought it was multi-instance.  I don't know if this needs re-visiting.

> Can you have Working Draft 1.1.01 uploaded by the end of this week? 

I will be uploading it right now.  It includes all of the Errata changes in addition to 1.2 items.  I did not make any changes to the ASN.1 schema which still reflects 1.1, ITU input required??  There are several items on the to-do list though.  Does the Oasis boilerplate need updating?  What should go in the TC Contributors section?  Is the Conformance section I added okay?  Also I've left "track changes" on so everyone can see the changes made to 1.1 and so it may need further vetting for any mistakes I made since Word can do funny things.  Finally can someone who speaks Spanish, check the multilingual message, I did my best using babelfish...

-- 
jake@jpw.biz
--

Thanks Jake,

I think we need to be careful about adding things so that we don't 
start sliding down any slippery slopes. That's why I suggested 
leaving EDXL-DE out. Once we start debating what to say about what we 
plan to do when, there's no easy way to decide where to stop. But 
that's what the list is good for now.

I don't have a problem dropping form="qualified" as long as we have 
general consensus.

The boilerplate would only need updating if we mention "EDXL-DE", for 
which we would need to add it as an OASIS copyright.

We can ask TC members if they want to be included in TC Contributors.

I think it is very wise to leave "Track Changes" on for now. We only 
need to accept all changes when it is voted to be sent to the TC for 
approval as a Committee Draft.

We all need to read through it.

Cheers,
Rex

At 5:00 PM -0400 3/17/09, Jacob Westfall wrote:
>  > I suggest we leave out any mention of EDXL-DE
>
>I left a placeholder but no content at this point.
>
>>  As long as the form="qualified" does not cause validation problems, I
>>  think we should leave it as is.
>
>It does cause validation issues and effective is being updated with 
>the DateTime Data Type anyways.
>
>>  I suggest we use Art's guidelines from the IPAWS profile for dateTime.
>
>Done.  Also as suggested by Art I've added an option for XML Sig/Enc 
>to the schema to ensure validation.
>
>Also I recall some IPAWS profile discussion regarding "note" in the 
>alert block.  Its currently a single instance element and I think 
>some thought it was multi-instance.  I don't know if this needs 
>re-visiting.
>
>>  Can you have Working Draft 1.1.01 uploaded by the end of this week?
>
>I will be uploading it right now.  It includes all of the Errata 
>changes in addition to 1.2 items.  I did not make any changes to the 
>ASN.1 schema which still reflects 1.1, ITU input required??  There 
>are several items on the to-do list though.  Does the Oasis 
>boilerplate need updating?  What should go in the TC Contributors 
>section?  Is the Conformance section I added okay?  Also I've left 
>"track changes" on so everyone can see the changes made to 1.1 and 
>so it may need further vetting for any mistakes I made since Word 
>can do funny things.  Finally can someone who speaks Spanish, check 
>the multilingual message, I did my best using babelfish...
>
>--
>jake@jpw.biz
>--
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670

> start sliding down any slippery slopes. That's why I suggested 
> leaving EDXL-DE out. Once we start debating what to say about what we 
> plan to do when, there's no easy way to decide where to stop. But 
> that's what the list is good for now.

I don't care either way.  Having something about EDXL could be good for user education and promoting other EM-TC specs.  But if it could cause problems working out what to say, then best to leave it out.

-- 
jake@jpw.biz
--