MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] OJP requirement to use the jxdm
Let me see if I can clarify what I was trying to point out. I was
trying to illustrating that the work of the EM TC has nothing to do
with OJP or any requirement they have placed. Just like we have no ties
to any other group. Basically, they have nothing to do with us. We
would not be an open standards committee if our efforts were dictated
by a single entity.
This is especially true given the fact that the public sector, of which
OJP is a % of, is only half of why the EM TC was formed and to which we
are building standards. Let's not forget about the business continuity
efforts within the private sector, which is the other half the
equation. We do not let a single entity in the private sector dictate
to us how we do things either.
Now, that being said we, as the TC, clearly have to be cognizant of the
environment around us. We can not act like some bigger than big group
that everyone must bow down to. In that sense we must, which the email
Gary P points out, stay in touch with our target audience - the
implementers, check writers, etc. When we view OJP in that light they
become a valuable input to our efforts, BUT THEY DO NOT dictate them -
especially since they do not represent a majority of the benefit of the
usage of our standards, CAP included, in the "real world."
Additionally, standards such as CAP and JXDM *should* (RFC 2119) do
what they can to coordinate efforts. No one wants to reinvent the wheel
and we all want to focus on the areas that we have the most domain
expertise and can provide the most value. For instance, it would be
unfair for either group to force another into their way of thinking,
BUT collaborating in places that make sense to help us both create
better and complementary standards - well, that is the whole idea of
working together.
Hope this helps. Wasn't trying to argue if the question was right or
wrong - just trying to point out that it has nothing to do with us
within the scope of why the EM TC was formed and by which the Charter
lays out.
Allen
On Jul 27, 2004, at 9:42 AM, Ham, Gary A wrote:
> Allen,
>
> I recently compared the two as well. Gary P is right. The structure
> of
> how the elements are named is not consistent with the Justice model. I
> believe that it may also be the reason that some validators are not
> reading it correctly while others are.
>
> He is not arguing with content, or even the valid XML that comes from
> using CAP. It is the structure (or maybe just the style) of the schema
> that is inconsistent. I had thought that it was our intent to be
> consistent with the justice style. I do not know that itis a
> requirement
> to be consistent, but it is a fact that we are not.
>
> R/s
>
> Gary A. Ham
> Senior Research Scientist
> Battelle Memorial Institute
> 540-288-5611 (office)
> 703-869-6241 (cell)
> "You would be surprised what you can accomplish when you do not care
> who
> gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman
>
>
>