OASIS Emergency Management TC

RE: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments

  • 1.  RE: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments

    Posted 11-04-2005 15:38
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

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


    Subject: RE: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments


    Title: Re: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments
    Renata brings up a good point that we need to consider. At the face-to-face, we learned that the premier requirement for the RM is that the RM be embedded in a DE because it is dependent on some of the DE information. What happens when payloads are carved up and forwarded to different recipients? The information from the DE is lost.
     
    I suggest that all of the standards (CAP, DE, RM, ...) be autonomous - fully containing all of the information that it needs even if it means having redundant information in the DE and the payloads. The DE should be sufficiently robust to handle any type of payload, CAP should be a complete A&N message, and a RM message should contain all of the information needed to manage resource procurement, stockpiling, prepositioning, deployment, tracking, and disposition.
     
    As far as the speed of progress. I agree that it would be great to take our time and produce a standard that is "right", but given the gaping hole in EM capability and the devastating consequences it can have, I think we're right in taking the heuristic approach. We may not produce an optimal solution, but it will be good enough to be useful, and with each iteration, we will get closer to the "right" standard.
     
    O.K. I'll step down off of my soapbox now...
     
    Patti


    From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au]
    Sent: Thu 11/3/2005 8:52 PM
    To: Emergency_Mgt_TC TC
    Subject: Re: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments



    On 4 Nov 2005, at 03:52, Elysa Jones wrote:

    > 1.  Infrastructure SC - The DE has now completed the comment period 
    > and we reviewed an overview of the comments received.  Mary 
    > provided a URL to the comment list.  Art is putting together the 
    > spread sheet with all comments for consideration.  As Mary stated 
    > on the call, for the EDXL DE 1.0 to be voted on this calendar year, 
    > it will have to be approved by the TC to go forward no later than 
    > Nov 7.  I would like for the IF-SC to work diligently over the next 
    > few days to provide a recommendation to the TC as to the dispense 
    > of these comments.  I will call a special meeting of the TC on 
    > Tuesday Nov 7 from 11-12 EST for the IF-SC to make their 
    > recommendations.  Provided we have a quorum and can agree to the IF-
    > SC dispense, we could vote at that meeting to go forward with a ballot

    My concern is that we seem to be pushing thru EDXL-DE when we have no 
    experience on
    how (or if) the work we now commence on EDXL-RM will impact on it.

    This was the case for CAP and EDXL - changes proposed in EDXL were 
    rejected because
    CAP did things in certain ways.

    I am concerned the same will now happen with EDXL-RM - since its 
    dependency on EDXL-DE is high.

    I suggest the EDXL-DE stay at committee draft for a longer period 
    until we are more clear
    on the technical integration with EDXL-RM. This would be the best 
    outcome for the community we represent.


    > 2.  Messaging SC - Now that the requirements for Resource has been 
    > through the review, I would like to see the messaging SC take over 
    > that work.

    Where are these Requirements? Were these discussed at the last f2f?


    Cheers...  Renato Iannella
    National ICT Australia (NICTA)



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
    privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
    use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
    recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
    messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
    data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
    amendment. This notice should not be removed.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
    at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

    IEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR NOTICE:
    http://www.ieminc.com/e_mail_confidentiality_notice.html



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