MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] CAP-related Comments
Walid -
I know you're doing your best... and that you're also aware of the
discussion that followed Jeff's initial post that you cite, in the
course of which he clarified his concerns considerably from that very
broad initial statement.
Those concerns turned out to be, primarily, about how restrictive the
options for geospatial descriptions ought to be, and secondarily,
whether the event descriptions and instructions could also be coded
more strictly. Those specific questions appear separately in your
list.
For the benefit of other TC members who couldn't participate in the
demo in DC, the archive of the demo team's working email is visible
at <http://www.incident.com/pipermail/cap-interop/>. I'll undertake
to keep that archive online for reference at least 'till we're done
with this round of deliberations.
- Art
At 6:21 PM -0400 10/15/03, Walid Ramadan wrote:
>Art:
>
>I was simply reading the archived emails and pulling out what sounded
>like a comment. For example, the statement " Protocol is too vague to
>allow for automated mapping of CAP messages into other, existing
>systems" comes from the CAP Interop mailing list archives. It is from
>Jeff Kyser, Sept 29, 2003 in response to your request for lessons
>learned following the demonstration.
>http://www.incident.com/pipermail/cap-interop/2003-September/00105.html
>
>I could not tell from the emails whether this issue was resolved or not,
>so I felt compelled to capture it as a topic for discussion.
>
>Walid
>
>