OASIS Emergency Management TC

  • 1.  Use Case

    Posted 04-17-2008 14:34 
    
TC Members,

    
We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on what constitutes a
"Use case" in our Standards.  Most of you have been aware
of this topic but we have not nailed down a position.  We must do
this before we can make the big push to get use cases for HAVE and
RM. 

    
This topic came up during the EIC meeting yesterday.  There are
several EIC members that know of companies that may want to be the first
or one of the first to advertise such a use case.  We need to give
them specific wording on what constitutes this "use". 
OASIS requires the statement to be in agreement with the conformance
clause of the specification.  We as a TC can cause this to be more
or less stringent and there are schools of thought on both. 

    
Please review the two positions on the matter identified below and
respond to the list on your preference.  Although this does not
require a formal vote of the TC, I want to make sure we have a good
understanding and consensus on how we proceed.

    
Position 1:

      

    • Comply with the full element reference model - required elements at a
minimum.  If a message is sent that complies with the ERM, then you
can be compliant with any of the specific messages. 

    • Deliver a RequestResource message and a ResponsetoRequestResource
message (just 2 messages). 

    If a vendor does either or, for purposes of statement of use and
getting the standard out the door, this should be the minimum
requirement.

    
Position 2:

      

    • Agreed with position 1

    • A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource Deployment
should be the minimum:

    RequestResource >
    
ResponseToRequestResource >
    
RequisitionResource >
    
CommitResource >
    
ReleaseResource.

    
The messages about the deployment, requesting information, release, etc
are not necessary, just the 5 listed.

    
NOW - please make your comments to the list.  The Mst/Not SC will
schedule a meeting either Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to discuss.  From
this a recommendation will be made.  Respond to this message too
with which date and what times you would be available.

    
Regards,
    
Elysa Jones
    
Chair, OASIS EM-TC
    
CTO/COO
    
Warning Systems, Inc.


  • 2.  Re: [emergency] Use Case

    Posted 04-17-2008 15:05 
    Hi everyone,

      I'm probably jumping into a conversation where I shouldn't, but from what I'm reading it sounds like you're attempting to define levels of conformance, which should be included in the specification's Conformance Statement section. Take a peek at the document prepared by the OASIS Conformance TC a few years back and you'll see a good discussion around establishing such levels of conformance.

    Regards,

    Mary

    On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com> wrote:
    


    
TC Members,

    
We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on what constitutes a
"Use case" in our Standards.  Most of you have been aware
of this topic but we have not nailed down a position.  We must do
this before we can make the big push to get use cases for HAVE and
RM. 

    
This topic came up during the EIC meeting yesterday.  There are
several EIC members that know of companies that may want to be the first
or one of the first to advertise such a use case.  We need to give
them specific wording on what constitutes this "use". 
OASIS requires the statement to be in agreement with the conformance
clause of the specification.  We as a TC can cause this to be more
or less stringent and there are schools of thought on both. 

    
Please review the two positions on the matter identified below and
respond to the list on your preference.  Although this does not
require a formal vote of the TC, I want to make sure we have a good
understanding and consensus on how we proceed.

    
Position 1:

      

    • Comply with the full element reference model - required elements at a
minimum.  If a message is sent that complies with the ERM, then you
can be compliant with any of the specific messages. 

    • Deliver a RequestResource message and a ResponsetoRequestResource
message (just 2 messages). 

    If a vendor does either or, for purposes of statement of use and
getting the standard out the door, this should be the minimum
requirement.

    
Position 2:

      

    • Agreed with position 1

    • A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource Deployment
should be the minimum:

    RequestResource >
    
ResponseToRequestResource >
    
RequisitionResource >
    
CommitResource >
    
ReleaseResource.

    
The messages about the deployment, requesting information, release, etc
are not necessary, just the 5 listed.

    
NOW - please make your comments to the list.  The Mst/Not SC will
schedule a meeting either Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to discuss.  From
this a recommendation will be made.  Respond to this message too
with which date and what times you would be available.

    
Regards,
    
Elysa Jones
    
Chair, OASIS EM-TC
    
CTO/COO
    
Warning Systems, Inc.
    





    --
    Mary P McRae
    Manager of TC Administration, OASIS
    mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
    voip: 603.232.9090


  • 3.  RE: [emergency] Use Case

    Posted 04-17-2008 15:08 
    In my view this is straightforward.  The statement of use should be strictly
based upon the conformance clause.  We can't set requirements for a
statement of use that are more stringent than the conformance requirements
specified in the standard itself.  

If the conformance section of a standard says that an implementation "X" is
conformant if and only if it does "Y", then all that the statement of use
really needs to say is something like, "Here is an implementation X of this
standard, which I certify to be conformant to the standard".  

If the standard specifies multiple conformance targets, the statement of use
needs to say which target is being referred to.

If the standard specifies multiple conformance classes or levels, the
statement of use needs to say which conformance class or conformance level
is being referred to.

In other words, in my view, a statement of use should simply state that the
OASIS member organization has created an implementation of a standard and
should contain a conformance claim about that implementation.  Like any
other conformance claim, that conformance claim should simply and very
clearly reference the particular conformance target, conformance class,
conformance level, and any conformance options that are specified in the
standard (if any).

The conformance section of RM (as of today) doesn't say that implementations
must support a complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment.
Therefore we cannot impose that kind of requirement on the statement of use.
If the TC believes that all implementations of RM should really support a
complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment, then we should
change the standard to specify that requirement either in the conformance
section or elsewhere.

Alessandro

 

> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 4.  RE: [emergency] Use Case

    Posted 04-17-2008 16:14 
    Good argument, and for now, I have to agree, but I'm reading the 
document Mary referred to see what it says about any possible 
difference or distinction between conformace in what is implemented 
and how much of a specification needs to be implemented.

Cheers,
Rex

At 11:07 AM -0400 4/17/08, Alessandro Triglia wrote:
>In my view this is straightforward.  The statement of use should be strictly
>based upon the conformance clause.  We can't set requirements for a
>statement of use that are more stringent than the conformance requirements
>specified in the standard itself. 
>
>If the conformance section of a standard says that an implementation "X" is
>conformant if and only if it does "Y", then all that the statement of use
>really needs to say is something like, "Here is an implementation X of this
>standard, which I certify to be conformant to the standard". 
>
>If the standard specifies multiple conformance targets, the statement of use
>needs to say which target is being referred to.
>
>If the standard specifies multiple conformance classes or levels, the
>statement of use needs to say which conformance class or conformance level
>is being referred to.
>
>In other words, in my view, a statement of use should simply state that the
>OASIS member organization has created an implementation of a standard and
>should contain a conformance claim about that implementation.  Like any
>other conformance claim, that conformance claim should simply and very
>clearly reference the particular conformance target, conformance class,
>conformance level, and any conformance options that are specified in the
>standard (if any).
>
>The conformance section of RM (as of today) doesn't say that implementations
>must support a complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment.
>Therefore we cannot impose that kind of requirement on the statement of use.
>If the TC believes that all implementations of RM should really support a
>complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment, then we should
>change the standard to specify that requirement either in the conformance
>section or elsewhere.
>
>Alessandro
>
>
>
>>  
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 5.  RE: EDXL-RM Statement Of Use

    Posted 04-17-2008 18:32


  • 6.  RE: EDXL-RM Statement Of Use

    Posted 04-17-2008 19:05 
    Hi All,

I'm for Friday, any time, but I can do Monday if needs be.

Cheers,
Rex

At 2:04 PM -0400 4/17/08, Timothy Grapes wrote:
>I think fantastic points are being made and we 
>have the foundation to move forward, but that we 
>should convene a conference call to finalize 
>discussion and determine appropriate steps and 
>communication.  Part of the catalyst here was to 
>publish a "plea" to the membership for companies 
>to provide RM Statements of Use, in order to 
>track progress as the standard nears the finish 
>line.  We need to agree on how that request 
>should be written.
>
>Could everyone interested in participating in 
>defining this approach and next step please 
>reply with your preference for FRIDAY or MONDAY, 
>please?
>
>For convenience I have pasted the EDXL-RM 
>conformance section below.  I am actually 
>advocating that any implementation of the 
>standard that adheres to this section would 
>equal a valid Statement of Use.  Recall that the 
>Level 1 and 2 Conformance options do address the 
>overall Element Reference Model, and then the 
>individual messages, but does not specify 
>specific ones or some minimum set.  Though I 
>agree with Rex's desire regarding a "complete 
>lifecycle of a successful resource deployment", 
>this is not applicable for Statement of Use 
>purposes, and that "complete lifecycle" may not 
>fully apply to the business processes of some 
>companies and their applications.  That's an 
>important objective ASAP, but I feel that 
>getting the draft standard through the process 
>and published is paramount in the immediate term.
>
>My 2-cents.  Let me know a day/time as we'll set it up.
>
>Thanks,
>Tim
>
>1        Conformance
>
>1.1 Conformance Targets
>
>The two following conformance targets are 
>defined in order to support the specification of 
>conformance to this standard:
>
>EDXL-RM Message; and
>
>
>EDXL-RM Message Producer.
>
>An EDXL-RM Message is an XML 1.0 element 
>whose syntax and semantics are specified in this 
>standard. An EDXL-RM Message Producer is a 
>software entity that produces EDXL-RM Messages.
>NOTE   There is no conformance target 
>corresponding to the consumers of EDXL-RM 
>messages. All the existing requirements for the 
>consumption of an incoming EDXL-RM message are, 
>in fact, requirements on the type and content of 
>the EDXL-RM message that is produced by the 
>consumer in reply to that message (if any). 
>Therefore, a conforming EDXL-RM Message Producer 
>(as defined in Section 5.4) will necessarily 
>meet all the existing requirements for the 
>production as well as for the consumption of 
>EDXL-RM messages.
>
>1.2 Conformance Levels
>
>The two following conformance levels are defined for EDXL-RM Messages:
>
>Level-1 EDXL-RM Message; and
>Level-2 EDXL-RM Message.
>NOTE   The conformance requirements for Level-1 
>and Level-2 EDXL-RM Messages are given in 
>Section 5.3, and summarized here. A Level-1 
>EDXL-RM Message is either one of the 16 resource 
>message elements specified in sections 3.4 to 
>3.19, or a different element (with a different 
>namespace name and an arbitrary local name) 
>whose type is the complex type 
>"EDXLResourceMessageReferenceType" specified in 
>Section 4.1.1. A Level-2 EDXL-RM Message is 
>restricted to be one of the 16 resource message 
>elements specified in sections 3.4 to 3.19. 
>Every Level-2 EDXL-RM Message is also a 
>conforming Level-1 EDXL-RM Message.
>The two following conformance levels are defined 
>for EDXL-RM Message Producers:
>
>Level-1 EDXL-RM Message Producer; and
>Level-2 EDXL-RM Message Producer.
>NOTE   The conformance requirements for Level-1 
>and Level-2 EDXL-RM Message Producers are given 
>in Section 5.4, and summarized here. A Level-1 
>EDXL-RM Message Producer is a software entity 
>that produces conforming (Level-1) EDXL-RM 
>Messages whenever a (Level-1) EDXL-RM Message is 
>expected. A Level-2 EDXL-RM Message Producer is 
>a software entity that only produces Level-2 
>EDXL-RM Messages whenever a Level-2 EDXL-RM 
>Message is expected. Every Level-2 EDXL-RM 
>Message Producer is also a conforming Level-1 
>EDXL-RM Message Producer.
>
>1.3 Conformance as an EDXL-RM Message
>
>1.3.1 Level-1 EDXL-RM Message
>
>An XML 1.0 element is a conforming Level-1 EDXL-RM Message if and only if:
>a)      it meets the general requirements specified in Section 3.3;
>
>b)      if its namespace name is 
>"urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:EDXL:RM:1.0:msg", 
>then its local name is one of the 16 resource 
>message type names specified in sections 3.4 to 
>3.19 (also listed in Table 1), and the element 
>is valid according to the schema located at
>


  • 7.  RE: EDXL-RM Statement Of Use

    Posted 04-17-2008 21:13 
     

> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 8.  RE: [emergency] Use Case

    Posted 04-17-2008 20:51 
    











    


    Just a note – all Drafts coming in
from DHS through EC will have Use Cases and several Scenarios attached as part
of the documentation set……
    


    


    


    Thanks,
    


    Lee
    


    'There are only two ways that you can live life.  One is as if
nothing is a miracle.  The other is as if everything is a miracle. I
believe in the latter' -
Albert Einstien
    


    


    


    


    


    


    From: Elysa Jones
[mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
    
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008
10:30 AM
    
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
    
Subject: [emergency] Use Case
    


    


    


    TC Members,

    
We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on what constitutes a "Use
case" in our Standards.  Most of you have been aware of this topic
but we have not nailed down a position.  We must do this before we can
make the big push to get use cases for HAVE and RM. 

    
This topic came up during the EIC meeting yesterday.  There are several
EIC members that know of companies that may want to be the first or one of the
first to advertise such a use case.  We need to give them specific wording
on what constitutes this "use".  OASIS requires the statement to
be in agreement with the conformance clause of the specification.  We as a
TC can cause this to be more or less stringent and there are schools of thought
on both. 

    
Please review the two positions on the matter identified below and respond to
the list on your preference.  Although this does not require a formal vote
of the TC, I want to make sure we have a good understanding and consensus on
how we proceed.

    
Position 1: 
    


      
 
    • Comply with the full element reference model -
     required elements at a minimum.  If a message is sent that complies
     with the ERM, then you can be compliant with any of the specific messages.
     
      • 
 
    • Deliver a RequestResource message and a ResponsetoRequestResource
     message (just 2 messages). 
      • 

    


    If a vendor does either or, for purposes of statement of use and
getting the standard out the door, this should be the minimum requirement.

    
Position 2: 
    


      
 
    • Agreed with position 1 
      • 
 
    • A complete lifecycle of a "successful"
     Resource Deployment should be the minimum: 
      • 

    


    RequestResource >
    
ResponseToRequestResource >
    
RequisitionResource >
    
CommitResource >
    
ReleaseResource.

    
The messages about the deployment, requesting information, release, etc are not
necessary, just the 5 listed.

    
NOW - please make your comments to the list.  The Mst/Not SC will schedule
a meeting either Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to discuss.  From this a
recommendation will be made.  Respond to this message too with which date
and what times you would be available.

    
Regards,
    
Elysa Jones
    
Chair, OASIS EM-TC
    
CTO/COO
    
Warning Systems, Inc.


  • 9.  RE: [emergency] Use Case

    Posted 04-18-2008 02:43 
    Thanks Lee,

I'm fairly sure Elysa meant "Statement of Use" 
not "Use Cases," especially not UML Use Cases.

As a side question, can you work with a Java 
Server Faces EDXL-RM application? I'm asking 
because I want to provide the application I'm 
working on (rather infrequently just now) in open 
source for other folks to adapt, extend and/or 
complete. I'm using NetBeans 6.0 as my IDE, and 
JSF is just easier and more reliable than vanilla 
JSP.

Cheers,
Rex

At 4:50 PM -0400 4/17/08, Lee Tincher wrote:
>Just a note - all Drafts coming in from DHS 
>through EC will have Use Cases and several 
>Scenarios attached as part of the documentation 
>setŠŠ
>
>Thanks,
>Lee
>'There are only two ways that you can live life. 
>One is as if nothing is a miracle.  The other is 
>as if everything is a miracle. I believe in the 
>latter' - Albert Einstien
>
>From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:30 AM
>To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [emergency] Use Case
>
>TC Members,
>
>We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on 
>what constitutes a "Use case" in our Standards. 
>Most of you have been aware of this topic but we 
>have not nailed down a position.  We must do 
>this before we can make the big push to get use 
>cases for HAVE and RM. 
>
>This topic came up during the EIC meeting 
>yesterday.  There are several EIC members that 
>know of companies that may want to be the first 
>or one of the first to advertise such a use 
>case.  We need to give them specific wording on 
>what constitutes this "use".  OASIS requires the 
>statement to be in agreement with the 
>conformance clause of the specification.  We as 
>a TC can cause this to be more or less stringent 
>and there are schools of thought on both. 
>
>Please review the two positions on the matter 
>identified below and respond to the list on your 
>preference.  Although this does not require a 
>formal vote of the TC, I want to make sure we 
>have a good understanding and consensus on how 
>we proceed.
>
>Position 1:
>
>Comply with the full element reference model - 
>required elements at a minimum.  If a message is 
>sent that complies with the ERM, then you can be 
>compliant with any of the specific messages.
>Deliver a RequestResource message and a 
>ResponsetoRequestResource message (just 2 
>messages).
>If a vendor does either or, for purposes of 
>statement of use and getting the standard out 
>the door, this should be the minimum requirement.
>
>Position 2:
>
>Agreed with position 1
>A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource 
>Deployment should be the minimum:
>RequestResource >
>ResponseToRequestResource >
>RequisitionResource >
>CommitResource >
>ReleaseResource.
>
>The messages about the deployment, requesting 
>information, release, etc are not necessary, 
>just the 5 listed.
>
>NOW - please make your comments to the list. 
>The Mst/Not SC will schedule a meeting either 
>Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to discuss.  From this 
>a recommendation will be made.  Respond to this 
>message too with which date and what times you 
>would be available.
>
>Regards,
>Elysa Jones
>Chair, OASIS EM-TC
>CTO/COO
>Warning Systems, Inc.


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


  • 10.  RE: [emergency] Use Case

    Posted 04-18-2008 02:59 
    Yes, I meant "Statement of Use"  Elysa

At 09:42 PM 4/17/2008, Rex Brooks wrote:
>Thanks Lee,
>
>I'm fairly sure Elysa meant "Statement of Use" 
>not "Use Cases," especially not UML Use Cases.
>
>As a side question, can you work with a Java 
>Server Faces EDXL-RM application? I'm asking 
>because I want to provide the application I'm 
>working on (rather infrequently just now) in 
>open source for other folks to adapt, extend 
>and/or complete. I'm using NetBeans 6.0 as my 
>IDE, and JSF is just easier and more reliable than vanilla JSP.
>
>Cheers,
>Rex
>
>At 4:50 PM -0400 4/17/08, Lee Tincher wrote:
>>Just a note - all Drafts coming in from DHS 
>>through EC will have Use Cases and several 
>>Scenarios attached as part of the documentation setŠŠ
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Lee
>>'There are only two ways that you can live 
>>life. One is as if nothing is a miracle.  The 
>>other is as if everything is a miracle. I 
>>believe in the latter' - Albert Einstien
>>
>>From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:30 AM
>>To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: [emergency] Use Case
>>
>>TC Members,
>>
>>We would like to nail down the TC's consensus 
>>on what constitutes a "Use case" in our 
>>Standards. Most of you have been aware of this 
>>topic but we have not nailed down a 
>>position.  We must do this before we can make 
>>the big push to get use cases for HAVE and RM.
>>This topic came up during the EIC meeting 
>>yesterday.  There are several EIC members that 
>>know of companies that may want to be the first 
>>or one of the first to advertise such a use 
>>case.  We need to give them specific wording on 
>>what constitutes this "use".  OASIS requires 
>>the statement to be in agreement with the 
>>conformance clause of the specification.  We as 
>>a TC can cause this to be more or less 
>>stringent and there are schools of thought on both.
>>Please review the two positions on the matter 
>>identified below and respond to the list on 
>>your preference.  Although this does not 
>>require a formal vote of the TC, I want to make 
>>sure we have a good understanding and consensus on how we proceed.
>>
>>Position 1:
>>
>>Comply with the full element reference model - 
>>required elements at a minimum.  If a message 
>>is sent that complies with the ERM, then you 
>>can be compliant with any of the specific messages.
>>Deliver a RequestResource message and a 
>>ResponsetoRequestResource message (just 2 messages).
>>If a vendor does either or, for purposes of 
>>statement of use and getting the standard out 
>>the door, this should be the minimum requirement.
>>
>>Position 2:
>>
>>Agreed with position 1
>>A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource 
>>Deployment should be the minimum:
>>RequestResource >
>>ResponseToRequestResource >
>>RequisitionResource >
>>CommitResource >
>>ReleaseResource.
>>
>>The messages about the deployment, requesting 
>>information, release, etc are not necessary, just the 5 listed.
>>
>>NOW - please make your comments to the list. 
>>The Mst/Not SC will schedule a meeting either 
>>Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to discuss.  From this 
>>a recommendation will be made.  Respond to this 
>>message too with which date and what times you would be available.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Elysa Jones
>>Chair, OASIS EM-TC
>>CTO/COO
>>Warning Systems, Inc.
>
>
>--
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-898-0670


  • 11.  RE: [emergency] Use Case

    Posted 04-17-2008 21:04 
    











    


    Elysa et al
    


    


    We did nail down a position for HAVE –
the Statement of Use will be based on the conformance section in the Standard.
For HAVE, we have defined the conformance targets and provided a definition of a
‘conformance target’ 
    


    


    I am not sure why we are revisiting this
issue - the below positions seem to be specific to RM, and if so, it should
dealt in the conformance section for RM. I will let the MSG SC members weigh in
on this – but, I am sure they have discussed this to some extent. I am
not in favor of overloading the statement of use. 
    


    


    Thanks
    


    


    Sukumar
    


    


    


    


    


    


    


    


    From: Elysa Jones
[mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
    
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008
10:30 AM
    
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
    
Subject: [emergency] Use Case
    


    


    


    TC Members,

    
We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on what constitutes a "Use
case" in our Standards.  Most of you have been aware of this topic
but we have not nailed down a position.  We must do this before we can
make the big push to get use cases for HAVE and RM. 

    
This topic came up during the EIC meeting yesterday.  There are several
EIC members that know of companies that may want to be the first or one of the
first to advertise such a use case.  We need to give them specific wording
on what constitutes this "use".  OASIS requires the statement to
be in agreement with the conformance clause of the specification.  We as a
TC can cause this to be more or less stringent and there are schools of thought
on both. 

    
Please review the two positions on the matter identified below and respond to
the list on your preference.  Although this does not require a formal vote
of the TC, I want to make sure we have a good understanding and consensus on
how we proceed.

    
Position 1: 
    


      
 
    • Comply with the full element reference model -
     required elements at a minimum.  If a message is sent that complies
     with the ERM, then you can be compliant with any of the specific messages.
     
      • 
 
    • Deliver a RequestResource message and a
     ResponsetoRequestResource message (just 2 messages). 
      • 

    


    If a vendor does either or, for purposes of statement of use and
getting the standard out the door, this should be the minimum requirement.

    
Position 2: 
    


      
 
    • Agreed with position 1 
      • 
 
    • A complete lifecycle of a "successful"
     Resource Deployment should be the minimum: 
      • 

    


    RequestResource >
    
ResponseToRequestResource >
    
RequisitionResource >
    
CommitResource >
    
ReleaseResource.

    
The messages about the deployment, requesting information, release, etc are not
necessary, just the 5 listed.

    
NOW - please make your comments to the list.  The Mst/Not SC will schedule
a meeting either Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to discuss.  From this a
recommendation will be made.  Respond to this message too with which date
and what times you would be available.

    
Regards,
    
Elysa Jones
    
Chair, OASIS EM-TC
    
CTO/COO
    
Warning Systems, Inc.


Related Content