Thanks Tim,
I believe we're caught up at this point and the fact that the
issues were deferred is understood. I'm sure David also understands
that CAM provides a good way to do as you suggest. We arranged to have
a collaborative (i.e. AdobeConnect shared webinar) during the Feb. 7
Adoption SC meeting.
Just for everyone's benefit, what Tim describes was incorporated
into the EDXL-RM spec, and will be included in the EDXL Reference
Information Model as major EDXL principle.
Cheers,
Rex
At 4:09 PM -0500 1/22/08, Timothy Grapes wrote:
Attached also was my 2-cents on the
topic. Rex had agreed with the content but I don't believe
this was used or forwarded to David.
Tim
-----------
Rex et al,
I left David off this response to first
determine whether the TC agrees with my comment. I have also
heard similar comments regarding the size of the standards (payload
size) discussed referencing the term "microformats". I
tend to use the term "profiles" here.
Setting aside David's comment regarding a
query message, I believe a need for smaller "lean and mean"
messages can be accommodated in accordance with the present HAVE
standard architecture through implementation of profiles.
HAVE contains only a handful of mandatory
elements, allowing implementers to create "profiles" to suit
their needs. By profiles I mean subsets of the overall
"reference schema" built in accordance with all requirements
of the specification. Put another way these are smaller
"constraint" schemas built off of the overall standard
"reference schema". A profile can be any size - very
small if needed to meet a particular exchange purpose.
In the case of RM I realize the TC choose
to explicitly define several of these "profiles" (individual
RM message types) within the spec. But we'll never predict all
possible needs, and the current standards do not preclude
implementations from developing their own profiles/constraint schemas
- as long as they adhere to the core standard definitions and
rules.
Thanks,
Tim
----------------
Thanks,
Tim
From: Rex Brooks
[mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:30 AM
To: ejones@warningsystems.com; sukumar_dwarkanath@sra.com;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] Fwd: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases /
implementation models
Hi Elysa, Sukumar, TC
Here is the message I sent to David
Webber with regard to the issues he raised for which I took an action
item to draft a response.
Cheers,
Rex
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:11:28 -0800
To: "David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Subject: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
Hi David,
I took an action item in today's Emergency Management TC Meeting to
respond to your two messages. We did not have a quorum, but we can
vote in our next meeting after the Second 60-Day Public Review of
EDXL-HAVE has expired to accept this response as a valid resolution to
the issue presented by your Public Comment copied below.
There are two responses to this:
1. We were not tasked with scoping our work to address modern SOA and
B2B best practices; but,
2. If this were not a specification which is finishing its 2nd 60-Day
Public Review, and if critical demand for this specification had not
been repeatedly stressed upon us, (by HITSP among others) we would
consider accepting your issues.
So, for now we choose to defer. However EDXL-Resource Messaging
(EDXL-RM) actually provides the Message Exchange Patterns you mention.
It is a couple of months behind EDXL-HAVE.
We will certainly consider adding such considerations in the next
version of EDXL-HAVE, but, in our opinion, the need for it is too
great to delay it based on these considerations.
That said, since I happen to be a member of the OASIS SOA Reference
Model TC, I can appreciate your concern, but I don't think this is
nearly as much of an encumbrance as you suggest.
We would welcome your assistance in building sample CAM templates to
show how your suggestions can be done with the existing
specification.
The EDXL-Resource Messaging (EDXL-RM) Specification will soon be ready
its 2nd 60-Day Public Review. EDXL-RM is based on the overall
Resource Message Type, with 16 specific Message Types.
These include a number of Requests and Responses, as well as Reports
which may become its own specification with EDXL-HAVE as a model.
I am editing the current version of EDXL-RM 1.0 which we will,
hopefully, finish at our upcoming workgroup face-to-face meetings
January 8,9,10 in Washington, D.C.
EDXL-DE 1.0 handles the Routing/Distribution of Emergency Messages and
is being implemented by the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
(IPAWS) and we are using what we learn in that effort to provide some
of the requirements for EDXL-DE 1.1.
The whole EDXL Family has at least two and maybe three more
specifications working their way through the practitioner-SME group
process that leads up to submitting it to the TC for the TC to decide
on accepting or not.
We are also planning an EDXL-Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM)
which will formalize the various kinds of messages and mechanisms in
the whole family at a more abstract level than the specifications. It
is preliminarily planned to include an RDF Schema and an OWL-DL
representation in addition to an XML Schema.
Cheers,
Rex Brooks
Subject: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
* From: "David RR Webber \(XML\)"
<david@drrw.info>
* To: emergency-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
* Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:40:27 -0700
Having looked at your XSD - I'm just not seeing the connection here to
modern SOA and B2B best practices.
Frankly - if I were a hospital adminstrator - I'd have a real hard
time understanding how I'd adopt this - and build it into emergency
dashboarding.
The problem is that this is an "all or nothing" information
exchange model - that seems at odds with a service based or B2B
collaborative partner model.
In the B2B model - I'd want to send out hourly bulletins on status
changes - and hence use lean-and-mean messages with just essentials
that new data requires.
In a SOA service model - I'd expect to do a query / response exchange
- where I'd send out requests to my group of partners (actually this
is a nice B2B / ebXML shared routing example too - rather than
point-to-point SOAP webservices).
So what we're missing is that query message. This could be based
off the xsd you have - simply put a message_type on there - and then
include the sections you want status on as empty tags - for a simple
first cut at this.
You may want to get more sophisticated and include specific service
empty tags below that parent.
The responding systems would then "fill-in" those empty tags
- as responding information.
Again - you can easily build CAM templates for this interaction model
- but you will need to change your schema to make things optional -
and then provide the CAM template for the particular interchange
context to make clear the exact content model(s).
Thanks, DW
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
From: "Timothy Grapes" <tgrapes@evotecinc.com>
To: "'Rex Brooks'" <rexb@starbourne.com>
Cc: "'Elysa Jones'" <ejones@warningsystems.com>
Subject: FW: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases /
implementation models
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:28:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D2_01C85D11.26314710"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acg8KbnihfK3bezKT1e4vcuPfRppAQABoTzwAGBpotAFGngDsA==
Content-language: en-us
Rex,
FYI below is my input to his question.
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original
Message-----
From: Timothy Grapes [mailto:tgrapes@evotecinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:00 PM
To: 'rexbroo@gmail.com'
Subject: FW: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use
cases / implementation models
See below.
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original
Message-----
From: Timothy Grapes [mailto:tgrapes@evotecinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:13 PM
To: 'Rex Brooks'
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use
cases / implementation models
Rex et al,
I left David off this
response to first determine whether the TC agrees with
my comment. I have also heard similar comments
regarding the size of the
standards (payload size) discussed referencing the
term "microformats". I
tend to use the term "profiles"
here.
Setting aside David's
comment regarding a query message, I believe a need
for smaller "lean and mean" messages can be
accommodated in accordance with
the present HAVE standard architecture through
implementation of profiles.
HAVE contains only a handful of mandatory elements,
allowing implementers to
create "profiles" to suit their needs.
By profiles I mean subsets of the
overall "reference schema" built in
accordance with all requirements of the
specification. Put another way these are smaller
"constraint" schemas built
off of the overall standard "reference
schema". A profile can be any size -
very small if needed to meet a particular exchange
purpose.
In the case of RM I
realize the TC choose to explicitly define several of
these "profiles" (individual RM message
types) within the spec. But we'll
never predict all possible needs, and the current
standards do not preclude
implementations from developing their own
profiles/constraint schemas - as
long as they adhere to the core standard definitions
and rules.
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original
Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:11 PM
To: David RR Webber (XML)
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases
/ implementation
models
Hi David,
I took an action item in
today's Emergency Management TC Meeting to
respond to your two messages. We did not have a
quorum, but we can
vote in our next meeting after the Second 60-Day
Public Review of
EDXL-HAVE has expired to accept this response as a
valid resolution
to the issue presented by your Public Comment copied
below.
There are two responses
to this:
1. We were not tasked with scoping our work to address
modern SOA and
B2B best practices; but,
2. If this were not a specification which is finishing
its 2nd 60-Day
Public Review, and if critical demand for this
specification had not
been repeatedly stressed upon us, (by HITSP among
others) we would
consider accepting your issues.
So, for now we choose to
defer. However EDXL-Resource Messaging
(EDXL-RM) actually provides the Message Exchange
Patterns you
mention. It is a couple of months behind
EDXL-HAVE.
We will certainly
consider adding such considerations in the next
version of EDXL-HAVE, but, in our opinion, the need
for it is too
great to delay it based on these
considerations.
That said, since I happen
to be a member of the OASIS SOA Reference
Model TC, I can appreciate your concern, but I don't
think this is
nearly as much of an encumbrance as you
suggest.
We would welcome your
assistance in building sample CAM templates to
show how your suggestions can be done with the
existing specification.
The EDXL-Resource
Messaging (EDXL-RM) Specification will soon be
ready its 2nd 60-Day Public Review. EDXL-RM is
based on the overall
Resource Message Type, with 16 specific Message
Types.
These include a number of
Requests and Responses, as well as Reports
which may become its own specification with EDXL-HAVE
as a model.
I am editing the current
version of EDXL-RM 1.0 which we will,
hopefully, finish at our upcoming workgroup
face-to-face meetings
January 8,9,10 in Washington, D.C.
EDXL-DE 1.0 handles the
Routing/Distribution of Emergency Messages
and is being implemented by the Integrated Public
Alert and Warning
System (IPAWS) and we are using what we learn in that
effort to
provide some of the requirements for EDXL-DE
1.1.
The whole EDXL Family has
at least two and maybe three more
specifications working their way through the
practitioner-SME group
process that leads up to submitting it to the TC for
the TC to decide
on accepting or not.
We are also planning an
EDXL-Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM)
which will formalize the various kinds of messages and
mechanisms in
the whole family at a more abstract level than the
specifications. It
is preliminarily planned to include an RDF Schema and
an OWL-DL
representation in addition to an XML
Schema.
Cheers,
Rex Brooks
Subject: EDXL-HAVE and
SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
* From: "David RR Webber \(XML\)"
<david@drrw.info>
* To:
emergency-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
* Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007
16:40:27 -0700
Having looked at your XSD
- I'm just not seeing the connection here
to modern SOA and B2B best practices.
Frankly - if I were a
hospital adminstrator - I'd have a real hard
time understanding how I'd adopt this - and build it
into emergency
dashboarding.
The problem is that this
is an "all or nothing" information exchange
model - that seems at odds with a service based or B2B
collaborative
partner model.
In the B2B model - I'd
want to send out hourly bulletins on status
changes - and hence use lean-and-mean messages with
just essentials
that new data requires.
In a SOA service model -
I'd expect to do a query / response exchange
- where I'd send out requests to my group of partners
(actually this
is a nice B2B / ebXML shared routing example too -
rather than
point-to-point SOAP webservices).
So what we're missing is
that query message. This could be based off
the xsd you have - simply put a message_type on there
- and then
include the sections you want status on as empty tags
- for a simple
first cut at this.
You may want to get more
sophisticated and include specific service
empty tags below that parent.
The responding systems
would then "fill-in" those empty tags - as
responding information.
Again - you can easily
build CAM templates for this interaction model
- but you will need to change your schema to make
things optional -
and then provide the CAM template for the particular
interchange
context to make clear the exact content
model(s).
Thanks, DW
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670