OASIS Emergency Management TC

Hi Folks,

I'm also forwarding this notification of the upload and availability 
of the "redline" version of document we will discuss in next week's 
TC meeting. That's why the filename indicates "04-to-05."

I'm doing this because I gave Jacob some erroneous information 
yesterday.  This is the "redline" version of the document (with 
tracked changes) which we will discuss in next Tuesday's TC meeting. 
I have also forwarded the "clean" document notification.

I neglected to notice that document-upload email notification is only 
shared with the groups listed in the Sharing row of the document 
submission form when the checkbox with the label "All groups with 
whom this document is shared." is checked in the Email Notifications 
section.

My bad, so I'm forwarding this to the TC list and will also forward 
the companion document.

Apologies to Jacob,
Rex

>Mailing-List: contact emergency-msg-help@lists.oasis-open.org; run by ezmlm
>List-Post: 

Rex / Jacob -

I'm having some difficulty making sense of that redline, particularly in the Data Dictionary section 3.2.  It appears that virtually everything in that section has been modified, which I'm sure isn't actually the case.  I wonder if it might be possible to get a redline version with just the actual changes in red?

Meanwhile, four specific observations:

1) Is the explicit definition of the dateTime type usage really a Normative Reference (section 1.6)?

2) Why are we adding quotes around the language in section 2.6?  What's being quoted?

3) Obviously the Acknowlegements section isn't finished.

4) Why are all the "By Whom" values other than Jacob Westfall removed from the Change History?

- Art


Art Botterell, Manager
Community Warning System
Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
50 Glacier Drive
Martinez, California 94553
(925) 313-9603
fax (925) 646-1120

>>> Rex Brooks 

> section 3.2.  It appears that virtually everything in that section has been modified, which I'm
> sure isn't actually the case.  I wonder if it might be possible to get a redline version with just
> the actual changes in red?

In the data dictionary, since its a table, because of how Word tracked the changes, even the addition/removal of a space or a period resulted in the whole row being redlined.   I could try to reformat it to get around this but it may be several hours work and I don't know how soon I could get to it.  I wasn't happy with this and noted it in the document notes on Kavi.  If anyone has some suggestions on how to correct this easily, please let me know.

> 1) Is the explicit definition of the dateTime type usage really a Normative Reference (section
> 1.6)?

Its being moved here since it defines a specific format for those elements.  Reviewing the definitions of Terminology vs Normative References, it seemed more appropriate to be moved here.  I suggested it be moved but am of no strong opinion either way.

> 2) Why are we adding quotes around the language in section 2.6?  What's being quoted?

I assume you mean 2.3?  The quotes are actually being removed from CAP 1.1, not added.

> 3) Obviously the Acknowlegements section isn't finished.

The Acknowledgements section in draft 05 has been updated with the current roster of the EM-TC.  If there are some who are missing, I can update this list again.

> 4) Why are all the "By Whom" values other than Jacob Westfall removed from the Change History?

The version history for this document is all that is being reflected.  I took Rex's advice on this. Should I check with Mary on how to do this instead?

-- 
jake@jpw.biz
--

Hi Art, Everyone,

Jacob asked me about this and my initial research, admittedly limited 
to sampling a very few OASIS Standard specs with version numbers 
greater than 1.0 found some with no Revision History, a Revision 
History with only the current version being documented and none in 
that initial sample which were complete to pre 1.0 working drafts. 
So, because I also edit specs, I gave it only the most cursory 
thought and came to the selfish conclusion that it is easier for 
editors, who can change from version to version to only be 
responsible for the version that they are currently editing, so I 
advised him to do it that way.

When you questioned it yesterday, I was too busy to get back to it as 
I had a full plate. Jacob asked me to look into it more in a separate 
email, though I was going to do that anyway based on this message, so 
I have gone a bit deeper, and I am pasting in my response to him 
below. I have changed my mind based on more research, but I want to 
make it clear that this is not comprehensive and I didn't seek to get 
exhaustive. We could ask Mary, but that response might take as much 
time or more than my own research both because she's busy and there's 
a lot of existing work to look through. So I have changed my mind, 
asked that the previous Revision History be included entirely since 
that seems safest and quickest.

Here's my replay to Jacob:

Hi Jacob,

Previously, due largely to happenstance, I checked only a few 
examples and found that even the inclusion of a Revision History did 
not appear to be consistent, and my own preference as an editor was 
to confine the workload of the editor to the current version on which 
the editor is working. Hence , my initial recommendation.

After reviewing several more OASIS Standards with version numbers 
greater than 1.0, I found more that included revision histories and 
among those I found more that included revisions back to 1.0 or pre 
1.0, so on that basis I'll change my recommendation to include all 
previous revisions.

So, please add the previous revisions back into the document and 
let's just punt for now.

If left to me, I would only include the revisions for the current 
work and if readers needed the whole history they could download the 
previous versions.

I am assuming that this is up to individual TCs. I would prefer to 
ask for guidance later, rather than hold up work now.

Revision History is included in the current templates, but is not 
specifically mentioned, that I found in my admittedly limited 
research into OASIS guidelines yesterday and this morning. Anyone can 
look for themselves at 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php

So I didn't find a definitive answer. Even the OASIS Naming 
Guidelines, Part Two: Metadata and Versioning only goes back to its 
version 04.

Although I generally don't like it when we just kick the can down the 
road, I think its appropriate on this one. I don't think its a debate 
worth having over CAP 1.2. We can take it up in v2.0 in the TC to see 
if we want to create a TC policy on this.

Cheers,
Rex

At 10:30 AM -0700 4/23/09, Art Botterell wrote:
>Rex / Jacob -
>
>I'm having some difficulty making sense of that redline, 
>particularly in the Data Dictionary section 3.2.  It appears that 
>virtually everything in that section has been modified, which I'm 
>sure isn't actually the case.  I wonder if it might be possible to 
>get a redline version with just the actual changes in red?
>
>Meanwhile, four specific observations:
>
>1) Is the explicit definition of the dateTime type usage really a 
>Normative Reference (section 1.6)?
>
>2) Why are we adding quotes around the language in section 2.6? 
>What's being quoted?
>
>3) Obviously the Acknowlegements section isn't finished.
>
>4) Why are all the "By Whom" values other than Jacob Westfall 
>removed from the Change History?
>
>- Art
>
>
>Art Botterell, Manager
>Community Warning System
>Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
>50 Glacier Drive
>Martinez, California 94553
>(925) 313-9603
>fax (925) 646-1120
>
>>>>  Rex Brooks 

Hi Again,

I neglected to respond to 1), 2), and 3) because I'm not editing the 
document, just giving advice.

However, I should at least respond where I can, so on:

The Redline: Jacob is doing battle with Word to produce a more 
readable version, having to recreate the changes from scratch since I 
don't know of a way to produce a tracked changes from the clean 
version.

1): I thought Jacob's suggestion that the inclusion of the dateTime 
type in the normative reference was in line with the change we made 
in the profile. I'm not claiming to be an authority, so if anyone has 
a different opinion, please let us know and we can discuss it.

2): Couldn't find a section 2.6? or 3.6, and quotes in 1.6 appear to 
be the same as in the DateTime Data Type in the 
CAP-v1.1-IPAWS-Profile-PR01 section 1.3.

3) Yup.

So now, I think I've replied as best I can.

Cheers,
Rex

At 10:30 AM -0700 4/23/09, Art Botterell wrote:
>Rex / Jacob -
>
>I'm having some difficulty making sense of that redline, 
>particularly in the Data Dictionary section 3.2.  It appears that 
>virtually everything in that section has been modified, which I'm 
>sure isn't actually the case.  I wonder if it might be possible to 
>get a redline version with just the actual changes in red?
>
>Meanwhile, four specific observations:
>
>1) Is the explicit definition of the dateTime type usage really a 
>Normative Reference (section 1.6)?
>
>2) Why are we adding quotes around the language in section 2.6? 
>What's being quoted?
>
>3) Obviously the Acknowlegements section isn't finished.
>
>4) Why are all the "By Whom" values other than Jacob Westfall 
>removed from the Change History?
>
>- Art
>
>
>Art Botterell, Manager
>Community Warning System
>Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
>50 Glacier Drive
>Martinez, California 94553
>(925) 313-9603
>fax (925) 646-1120
>
>>>>  Rex Brooks