David,
What you are saying here is "fork the standard." What you have described here is an excellent way to build an IEPD from NIEM or another previously defined IEPD. It is even a good way to model a needed change to a standard exchange. But is is not a good way to implement a standard. Because it is a one off that actually violates the standard schema, you have created a non-standard implementation fork if you build an actual exchange in this fashion. If you are building a custom system to system exchange, there is nothing wrong with this. If, however, you are building a multi-system reusable structure, this should only be the first step in establishing a potential new schema for submission to a standards process. Otherwise implementing it is customization, and not standardization.
R/s
Gary
On Mar 15, 2010, at 1:30 PM, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
Lee,
OK - lets spell this out in technical terms of schema - ignore I ever mentioned NIEM.
Here's what you do. In OASIS EDXL there is the HospitalResourcesStatus.
Critically it is missing all the mission elements needed below for Haiti relief purposes.
So what you do is create an extension schema - put in all those new components that you need urgently - then extend the definition of HospitalResourcesStatus to include those as additional choices.
Import the extension schema into the OASIS EDXL XSD - and now you have what you need working - and you disseminate the extension schema for those systems that need to process the extended elements.
You submit your extension schema to the TC as suggestion for inclusion in next release of EDXL.
As a TC it is therefore beneficial to instruct people - here's how to extend our schema in a recommended way to meet emergency needs. Please provide that as feedback to us when you do.
Thanks, DW
Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs.
Released Schemas
From: ltincher@evotecinc.com
Date: Mon, March 15, 2010 1:19 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: "Lee Tincher" <ltincher@evotecinc.com>, "'Lewis Leinenweber'"
<lleinenweber@evotecinc.com>, "'Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL'"
<sukumar_dwarkanath@sra.com>, dmcgarry@mitre.org,
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
David,
Once again I am in a position to completely disagree with your statements.
The Keyword concept not only matches nicely with the NIEM NDR it also
completely supports the use of NIEM Code Lists IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE
THEM
..
EDXL is a series of INTERNATIONAL Standards. Federation with NIEM is nice
and I heavily support that every day for both FEMA and DHS but
Federation is NOT compliance. For more on this I once again would point
you to http://www.grandpaham.com for some interesting perspective on this.
The ideas of things like adapters and code lists (especially through the
use of keywords) support the federation of NIEM if you choose to use NIEM.
We are not in the position (or the desire) to re-make EDXL into NIEM
that does not support our International views.
We (I am speaking of my little company) utilize NIEM through the concepts
provided to consume EDXL through adapters and code lists. I would like to
promote the idea of using NIEMs data dictionary for future development
simply because it helps us get closer to common terms between our varying
standards but that is a discussion for a much broader group that
includes our international members
Thanks,
Lee
> Lee, keyword concept
> That is definitely not NIEM compliant nor is it good for long term
> interoperability. Better is an extensible payload area with type of
> ##any - or even better using the NIEM extension mechanism to provide an
> extension schema for these new pieces. Those can then be simply
> incorporated in the next standard schema. HAVE EDXL is a half-way house
> at the moment - some parts are following NIEM - others not so much.
> Obviously its a balancing act - but I would suggest where NIEM has good
> mechanisms for implementing these needs - that those techniques should be
> considered first. This also allows just to provide guidelines to
> developers - that then can then use when they encounter these situations.
> Thanks, DW