MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: EDXL common distribution element
Hi David,
Getting defensive over this does not solve the legitimate problems noted in the report. I know very well my strategic imperative and I assure
you it intersects with this effort. More importantly than that is achieving interoperability across domains which I also know a few things about.
So, when you propose an element in a message that is ambiguous and can be misinterpreted, I have a problem with it. When you a propose an
element in a message without a use case to judge its utility, I have a problem with that. As for 9 months of discussion, is there any documentation on those discussions? I would like to see it.
So, let's focus on the technical issues. In fact, let's look at what the W3C does for new specifications -- they publish a use cases document. If you look at the specificity in document like http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-use-cases/ -- I would recommend a similarly rigorous process.
- Mike
________________________________
From: David Aylward [mailto:daylward@comcare.org]
Sent: Mon 3/28/2005 11:02 AM
To: Daconta, Michael; Elysa Jones; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Hines, Chip; tmerkle@capwin.org; gordon.fullerton@dhs.gov; mwalton@eteam.com; pembley@mstar2.net; Patrick Halley; tgrapes@evolutiontechinc.com; Sukumar Dwarkanath; bill.kalin@associates.dhs.gov; Tincher, Lee; tgrapes@evolutiontechinc.com
Subject: RE: EDXL common distribution element
Mike:
It might be helpful if we arrange a briefing for you on the EDXL process. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a couple of folks got together and invented the need for a Distribution Element, whipped up a draft spec without reference to other standards work (e.g. GJXDM), demonstrated it, and threw it into the TC to figure out. Each of those impressions is understandable, but wrong. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that demonstrations have to be perfect to be valid. We find them to be helpful when they point out improvements that are needed.
The October EDXL demonstration had almost all the web-based EOC tool competitors (and several others) exchanging messages using the DE, and CAP as the content. If you spend any time in the emergency response space, one of the first things you run into is people talking about the need for "EOC to EOC interoperability" (although both the demonstration and user requirements make it clear that that is a far too narrow definition of the need).
We solicited the reactions of all the participants, and organized the process that produced the criticism memorandum of that demonstration you just read. In this case, the EIC member companies that built to the EDXL draft distribution element and participated in the demonstration said it was not a big deal to do it, but would have been easier if there were "an implementation guide". Gary Ham of Battelle was tasked by DM to write that and is working on it.
The "canvassing of the emergency response community" is a detailed and intensive on-going process, including formal meetings of the DM Practitioner Working Group run by Touchstone (which initiates high level requirements), the Standards Working Group facilitated by ComCARE, and lots of detailed conversations in between. The key conclusion from 9 months of discussion about the DE was its value would be that it was not narrow , not designed for a "3 specific use cases". The whole point is for the range of emergency agencies to be able to communicate with each other, without creating a new interface for their CAD system for each new message that comes along; almost by definition that will not fit in three specific use cases. Your suggestion flies in the face of the strategic imperative these agencies share. That is a different strategic imperative than the one your Center has, but there is no reason they cannot co-exist, and indeed be mutually supportive.
We can and should do a much better job documenting all of this, writing up specific use cases as we discussed, and exploring other specifics. But I don't think that requires putting aside this project.
David Aylward
Director
The ComCARE Alliance
1701 K St., N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
202-429-0574 Extension 201
202-296-2962 (fax)
202-255-3215 (mobile)