MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: [CAP] [emergency] NOAA UnderminingInternational Standards?
Hi Lee,
Procedurally, I agree with you, and I think that would be the best
way to handle it. I wasn't aware of that special program when I last
I wrote, but what I outlined may still need to be considered later
on, if an OAT issue report doesn't serve to alert the program to a
grave problem. I am sure they don't quite see the situation the way
we do, or else the reasons given that Art recounted would not have
been sufficient to warrant dropping the "instructions" field.
I doubt that this is a concerted effort to preserve proprietary
systems. I suspect it is far more likely just a case of
shortsightedness along the lines of "why should we make more work out
of this particular functionality."
However, that's exactly the sort of thing that accumulates within
systems as large as the one under construction, of which I understand
HazCollect is a subset. So, some corners cut here to make
implementation easier could end up making the larger system more
vulnerable to breakdowns that could cost lives.
Thanks for the new information, Lee, I appreciate it.
Regards,
Rex
At 8:43 AM -0400 6/2/06, Lee Tincher wrote:
>Rex,
>
>Although I understand and agree with the technical aspects of Arts point I
>must respectfully disagree with the approach you outline to rectify it. I
>am not certain that this is outside the bounds of OASIS other than to
>possibly make a statement that the proposed implementation is not truly CAP
>compliant.
>
>As I understand it HazCollect is currently in Operational Acceptance Testing
>and Art is a member of the OAT team. Wouldn't HazCollect OAT be a more
>appropriate place to bring up this issue?
>
>I would like to ask Elysa to weigh in on this to see if this is an
>appropriate discussion by OASIS guidelines.
>
>Thanks,
>Lee
>
>