OASIS Emergency Management TC

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Call for quorum - Thurs 11/2 4:45PM EST

  • 1.  Call for quorum - Thurs 11/2 4:45PM EST

    Posted 11-01-2006 11:18 
    
Dear EM-TC Members,

    
We did not have a quorum for our meeting yesterday and we would like to
get the HAVE moved forward to public comment, as well as review/approve
the meeting notes for the past few meetings.  We had our meeting
which is summarized in the notes that will be uploaded for review but
without a quorum, we were not able to do any business.  We will plan
to have a short meeting on Thursday just before the Msg/Not meeting on
Resource Thursday evening at 4:45PM EST.  The EM-TC part of the
meeting should only last 15 minutes if everyone can be prepared to vote
on HAVE.  If you have any issues on the draft as it is posted or
corrections to the meeting notes for the Sept and Oct meetings, please
post them to the list as soon as possible. 

    
Thanks! 
    
Elysa Jones, Chair
    
OASIS EM-TC
    
Engineering Program Manager
    
Warning Systems, Inc.

    
PS - The EIC meeting will be today Nov 1.  You can dial in to
800-320-4330 pin # 327547


  • 2.  HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-01-2006 19:57
      |   view attached

    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    NIEM_NDR-0.3.pdf   322 KB 1 version


  • 3.  Re: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 13:57 
    Hi Tim,

I posed my initial response earlier, but I wanted 
to specifically address where in the process this 
should be taken up wrt HAVE.

My own feeling (subjective) is that it should be 
held back until a subsequent version, e.g. v1.1. 
or 2.0 because I suspect it will meet the 
criterion that a substantive change requiring a 
new 60-day public review has a threshold or 
trigger whereby a substantive change is one that 
"breaks" existing applications.

Objectively, we literally can't afford to hold 
this up, or vendors will produce their own 
menagerie of proprietary solutions. This is what 
happened for the OASIS SOA Reference Model TC 
(and current Reference Architecture SC). It has 
endured and continues to face the proliferation 
of ESBs and "SOA Fabrics"  jockeying for the 
inside track in the marketplace while we 
carefully crafted the Reference Model and 
continue to work on the Reference Architecture. 
However, because both the model and architecture 
are largely abstract, much like we can make the 
NDR we can, I believe, absorb ESBs and Fabrics, 
albeit with a very flexible shoe horn.

So while the comparison is not precise, the 
effect that ESB vendors have been running away 
with the marketplace still applies.

So we will have to attempt to incorporate NDR, 
crafting it as a non-breaking, non normative 
"best practice" in an appendix during and 
immediately after the 60-day review IF we have 
the time--which is to say, IF we are not swamped 
with industry comments. We will also need to 
include the advice that we expect to incorporate 
a general-purpose NDR methodology in the next 
version of HAVE and EDXL_DE along with all 
subsequent members of the EDXL family.

We may be able to do this because what we are 
doing is establishing a methodology for NDR, not 
a controlled vocabulary in itself. If NIEM is 
looking for a the greater restriction of its own 
controlled vocabulary, which is what we feared 
early on in Mike Daconta's initial statements, we 
would have a greater challenge, and I would have 
to take the position that we are required to 
ensure international applicability over any 
specific national systems.

Either way, its a tough pill that it is better to 
take now than postpone because it is not going to 
taste any better, and likely to ferment into much 
worse, if we wait.

Cheers,
Rex

At 2:57 PM -0500 11/1/06, Tim Grapes wrote:
>All,
>
>I and others on and off the OASIS EM-TC would 
>like to post a recommendation that the National 
>Information Exchange Model (NIEM) Naming and 
>Design Rules (NDR) be adopted and applied to the 
>HAVE committee draft.  My understanding is that, 
>although a consistent convention was used to 
>name the elements, no formal NDR has been 
>followed for HAVE or for Resource Messaging (RM).
>
>Please note that not adopting the NDR does not 
>prevent use of NIEM to develop exchanges using 
>EDXL standards; however, the difficulty for 
>practitioners may be increased otherwise.  I 
>realize that this feels Federal 
>government-driven, but I don't see a down-side 
>since the particular semantics applied should 
>not negatively impact the International 
>community. 
>
>Benefits:
>·         Use HAVE as the starting point to 
>begin applying a published and consistent naming 
>convention across the EDXL standards
>·         Promote reuse and facilitate simpler 
>and more seamless use of NIEM for the 
>development of IEPD's and implementation of 
>exchanges using the EDXL standards.
>·         Provide a straight-forward avenue and 
>mechanism for state and local organizations to 
>comply with grants language which specifies NIEM 
>and EDXL
>
>We do not feel that the specification should be 
>held up; HAVE should proceed into the 60-day 
>comment period with this and other comments that 
>have been posted.  If adopted by the TC, 
>recommend that the NIEM NDR be adopted for the 
>draft Resource Messaging and subsequent 
>standards, and possibly to the Distribution 
>Element when a successive version is put forth.
>
>I welcome any comments or feedback.  I will be 
>on the call Thursday at 4:45.  Because HAVE is 
>pending committee vote, I don't know where this 
>comment should be formally posted.  Please 
>advise and I will ensure that gets done.
>
>Sincerely,
>Tim Grapes
>Evolution Technologies, Inc.
>Office:  (703) 654-6075
>Mobile:  (703) 304-4829
>


  • 4.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 14:03 
    Rex,

If we waited until the next version to adopt the NDR wouldn't that put us in
the position of having an immediate major release (v2.0) since I doubt that
it would be backwards compatible from the initial release?

Thanks,
Lee
'We the unwilling, led by the unknowing have been doing the difficult with
little for so long that we are now ready to tackle the impossible with
nothing.' -- Local Fire communications reserve volunteer motto


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 5.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 14:17 
    Hey Rex,

I do understand where you are coming from, but my feeling is that now is the
time to adopt the NDR, before we have a release.  The NDR is conformant to
ISO 11179, and I don't think it would be considered a substantive change -
the structure and definitions are the same.  We would only be changing the
semantics.  It should not break existing applications since HAVE is only a
draft, and should only be used to this point for pilots and demos.  

I do believe the time is now to incorporate this, but perhaps I don't fully
understand the argument you put forth. As it stands, the TC has incorporated
naming logic not based upon an NDR.  We're simply recommending adoption of a
specific convention that will cure a lot of headaches down the pike.

Thanks,

Tim



    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 6.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 15:06 
    All, 

I am not against the NIEM NDR, but the TC should conduct the due
diligence to understand if there are other alternatives or
recommendations from OASIS. I do not want to be stuck in a position
where we adopt this now, and OASIS then stipulates another NDR... 

This will be a substantive change as it not just a change in the
semantics but it involves a lot more effort - you need to align to the
schema design rules, data modeling rules etc. Which brings me to my next
question - what stage is this document in? The reason I ask is that I do
not see any content in Sec 11, 12 etc. 

I agree with the notion that we need to adopt a NDR and apply it
consistently for all products, but we need to make sure that what we
conduct the due diligence. 

Sukumar




    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 7.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 15:11 
    Sukumar,

I agree.  We need to have an open discussion on this as soon as we can.
Adopting a NDR is critical, but your point is well made - it may not be the
NIEM NDR that is final - this will make NIEM work a lot harder - but I
cannot imagine that every standards body that will be represented in NIEM
will adopt their NDR....NIEM needs to address this from their side.  

Thanks,
Lee
'We the unwilling, led by the unknowing have been doing the difficult with
little for so long that we are now ready to tackle the impossible with
nothing.' -- Local Fire communications reserve volunteer motto


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 8.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 15:30 
    Yes, Lee,

I understand that, but I suspect it would take less time to do it that way...

It's a question of one versus two 60-day public review periods. If we 
have a 60-day pr now, we will need to have another if we add the NDR 
to HAVE after the pr now. That means it will be at least six to eight 
months in all probability before HAVE gets approved OASIS-wide. If we 
do 1.1 in six months or eight months that is not out of line with 
what we have seen in other circumstances,but tin the meantime we have 
a functional HAVE. However, I have a suggestion to avoid that, too.

This is not going to be an easy or rubber stamp effort, I'm afraid. 
That's why I think the best option is to create an EDXL Reference 
Information Model (EDXL_RIM) that includes a methodology for NDR with 
which recast, but backward compatible applications of existing 
specifications could be built. That way what an implementer does is 
to create translation table from existing terms and definitions to 
the RIM NDR, and then just reference the namespace of the translation 
table in the application. Legacy apps work as is, or get translated. 
The translation fit sthe NDR and are interoperable with sucessive 
versions of the specs.

I prefer that rather than re-engineering the specifications 
themselves. My reply to Tim was trying to address the immediate 
problems in a way that fits with what most people are familiar with 
doing, but my strongest advice is to do the RIM rather than fussing 
with individual specifications at this time. I believe we are going 
to end up having to do both anyway, so I'm not especially inclined to 
argue over it.

I will however, insist on doing the due diligence to create the specs 
correctly, regardless, and that means we are going to have the 
discussion over how to shape the NDR for fitting international as 
well national needs. THAT's the discussion I would prefer to postpone 
until a later time, after we decide how we are going to deal with the 
work in front of us.

Cheers,
Rex

At 9:01 AM -0500 11/2/06, Lee Tincher wrote:
>Rex,
>
>If we waited until the next version to adopt the NDR wouldn't that put us in
>the position of having an immediate major release (v2.0) since I doubt that
>it would be backwards compatible from the initial release?
>
>Thanks,
>Lee
>'We the unwilling, led by the unknowing have been doing the difficult with
>little for so long that we are now ready to tackle the impossible with
>nothing.' -- Local Fire communications reserve volunteer motto
>
>
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 9.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 19:09 
    Hi everyone,

  I just wanted to add a point of clarification. If substantive changes are made
after an initial 60-day public review, the specification must be submitted for
an additional public review that must lest at least 15 days. So, unless the
changes are so extensive that the TC feels it is impossible to identify the
changes and restrict comments to that area, the 2nd review could be for as few
as 15 days.

The bigger question is - if you're planning on making the change, it seems
dishonest to ask people to spend time reviewing when you know it will be changed
rather than waiting.

Regards,

Mary 

> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 10.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 19:38 
    Hi Mary,

I am happy to be corrected here, but it was my understanding that a 
substantive change required a second full public review. I'm fairly 
sure that this would more than qualify for a substantive change since 
it would in some cases literally change the name of elements and 
attributes. I agree that it would be unfair to ask people to spend 
time reviewing, and, presumably, testing when we think a major change 
is likely. The problem, in my opinion, is that we are not going to be 
able to do the due diligence in this case in a week or two, or even 
just a month, when I look at the amount of time other committees and 
work groups have put in on the issues in NDR, when what we have is 
fit to use now. If I could in good conscience give my blessing to 
NIEM, it would be fine, but I need a lot more information and time to 
study it before I can say that, and I think, in the end, we would 
have to opt for a more international standard.

You could join the conversation at 4:45 p.m. this afternoon if you'd 
like to weigh in. We were hoping to only spend 15 minutes on it and 
approve moving forward with HAVE but I think it is now unlikely that 
we wil be able to do that.

Cheers,
Rex

At 8:08 PM +0100 11/2/06, Mary McRae wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>   I just wanted to add a point of clarification. If substantive 
>changes are made
>after an initial 60-day public review, the specification must be submitted for
>an additional public review that must lest at least 15 days. So, unless the
>changes are so extensive that the TC feels it is impossible to identify the
>changes and restrict comments to that area, the 2nd review could be for as few
>as 15 days.
>
>The bigger question is - if you're planning on making the change, it seems
>dishonest to ask people to spend time reviewing when you know it 
>will be changed
>rather than waiting.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mary
>
>>  
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 11.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 20:13 
    Hi Rex,

  I'm in Germany - just arrived this morning - and am afraid I will be sound
asleep by the time the meeting happens.

  I'll make your day :-) After an initial 60-day public review, the TC may make
non-substantive (i.e. editorial) changes without requiring further review. If
the TC makes substantive changes (and the TC decides whether or not such changes
are substantive) than they must submit for a minimum 15-day public review. The
additional burden is that the new public review draft must contain a complete
change log, and preferably, a change-marked version, since only those changes
made since the previous review are subject to comment.

  In general, I agree that this is a large issue - Elysa may want to speak with
Jon Bosak (UBL chair) about the OASIS UBL NDR v1.0, although I think Sylvia has
spoken well of the challenges. 

Regards,

Mary

> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 12.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 16:38 
    Hi Rex,

Although I haven't been able to be active in the TC, I continue to try to
keep up with it's work. This particular topic is one that I cannot keep
silent on since software that supports ISO 11179 and it's practical
implementation, ISO 15000-5 are what my company creates software to for and
where I spend most of my time in the standards arena.

Adding any NDR that supports ISO 11179 will not be a minor task. It isn't
something that can be done in a few months. Even with specialized tool
support it will take a dedicated team many hours of pains taking work.
Specifically adding the NIEM NDR may also produce a national solution
instead of a international solution.

I believe that there is an approach that will support multiple NDR including
the NIEM and support the needs of the international community. Essentially,
it is proceeding with the RIM work that I believe you have already started
and incorporating ISO 15000-5 which includes support for ISO 11179-4. 

Simply adding the NIEM NDR will not achieve support for the wide variety of
requirements that the OASIS community will need. The NIEM NDR is a schema
representation of a data model. In order to support the needs of an
international community, you need a syntax neutral representation of the NDR
first. ISO 15000-5 is a syntax neutral representation of 11179.
Additionally, when the GJXDM was in development, many of the data
requirements were submitted to UN/CEFACT and subsequently to ISO for
inclusion in the current version of 15000-5. From the syntax neutral
representation, you can have any number of NDR to meet specific
requirements. I am working with various US Government agencies on various
ISO 15000-5 projects. 

Whether we like it or not, ISO 15000-5 and 11179 are being specified in
multiple governments RFPs now in the US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and
Asia. In the past month I have attended meetings in New Delhi and Sydney
where some of this standards development work is being done by various
government bodies as well as private industries. Sooner rather than later,
there will be an interest in using these standards for EM TC messages. When
to bite the bullet, what approach to use, and how to move forward at the
same time to prevent a plethora of proprietary vendor and in-house developed
solutions are the real questions that need to be discussed and answered. 

I believe this requires a lot more discussion and consideration of the
various approaches and results that one approach over another will produce.
I hope that I can be available to participate in those discussions.

Sylvia Webb 
GEFEG US 
310-370-3410 - Voice
310-370-5614 - Fax 
www.gefeg.com -  Internet 


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 13.  RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

    Posted 11-02-2006 17:21 
    Thanks Sylvia,

I was not aware of the extent of international adoption, though I was 
aware that ISO 11179 and ISO 15000-5 were getting traction. I was 
actually more concerned that we make our specs more compatible with 
business process automation in bpel, wsbpel, ebXML 
registry/repository, and ubl, though all of this needs to work 
together, hence my suggestion of an EDXL_RIM which will make it 
relatively easy to build translation tables to accommodate 
terminology remediation backwards and forwards, and takes the 
immediate time constraint out of play for both HAVE and Resource 
Messaging short term and Situational Awareness longer term.

However, regardless, there is no easy way to accomplish what we need 
to do, there are only choices between difficult and pains taking 
options and whether we end up duplicating efforts for each of the 
specifications we have already done in order to have consistent NDR 
within HAVE and then retrofitting EDXL_DE. As has now been pointed 
out, it is not simply a matter of incorporating NIEM as is without 
significant consequences. Perhaps we can suggest asking a NIEM expert 
to join our next TC meeting, and perhaps an ISO expert as well, not 
that you are not an expert yourself, Sylvia. But it might be best to 
have a non-TC, possibly non-OASIS expert, or at least someone who 
does not have a major vested interest in this TC work. I am certain 
we can craft an EDXL_RIM with an NDR that is both NIEM and ISO 11179 
and 15000-5 compatible, or that can produce translations of existing 
specifications that are compatible.

Cheers,
Rex

At 8:36 AM -0800 11/2/06, Sylvia Webb wrote:
>Hi Rex,
>
>Although I haven't been able to be active in the TC, I continue to try to
>keep up with it's work. This particular topic is one that I cannot keep
>silent on since software that supports ISO 11179 and it's practical
>implementation, ISO 15000-5 are what my company creates software to for and
>where I spend most of my time in the standards arena.
>
>Adding any NDR that supports ISO 11179 will not be a minor task. It isn't
>something that can be done in a few months. Even with specialized tool
>support it will take a dedicated team many hours of pains taking work.
>Specifically adding the NIEM NDR may also produce a national solution
>instead of a international solution.
>
>I believe that there is an approach that will support multiple NDR including
>the NIEM and support the needs of the international community. Essentially,
>it is proceeding with the RIM work that I believe you have already started
>and incorporating ISO 15000-5 which includes support for ISO 11179-4.
>
>Simply adding the NIEM NDR will not achieve support for the wide variety of
>requirements that the OASIS community will need. The NIEM NDR is a schema
>representation of a data model. In order to support the needs of an
>international community, you need a syntax neutral representation of the NDR
>first. ISO 15000-5 is a syntax neutral representation of 11179.
>Additionally, when the GJXDM was in development, many of the data
>requirements were submitted to UN/CEFACT and subsequently to ISO for
>inclusion in the current version of 15000-5. From the syntax neutral
>representation, you can have any number of NDR to meet specific
>requirements. I am working with various US Government agencies on various
>ISO 15000-5 projects.
>
>Whether we like it or not, ISO 15000-5 and 11179 are being specified in
>multiple governments RFPs now in the US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and
>Asia. In the past month I have attended meetings in New Delhi and Sydney
>where some of this standards development work is being done by various
>government bodies as well as private industries. Sooner rather than later,
>there will be an interest in using these standards for EM TC messages. When
>to bite the bullet, what approach to use, and how to move forward at the
>same time to prevent a plethora of proprietary vendor and in-house developed
>solutions are the real questions that need to be discussed and answered.
>
>I believe this requires a lot more discussion and consideration of the
>various approaches and results that one approach over another will produce.
>I hope that I can be available to participate in those discussions.
>
>Sylvia Webb
>GEFEG US
>310-370-3410 - Voice
>310-370-5614 - Fax
>www.gefeg.com -  Internet
>
>
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


Related Content