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 Undermining International Standards?
Lee,
I have been watching this issue unfold for several years - it is not
new. Art and I made a request of NOAA over a year ago at the IPAWS
conference to provide the details of how their implementation was
different so that the OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee
so it could be evaluated in light of the CAP 1.1 update. This
information was not forthcoming nor has any method tried so far to
discuss this in an open consensus based format. Although Art and I
have not talked about this recently, I assume he wanted to get this
in the open space before the OAT because his efforts to be heard from
a part of the team have been to no avail.
The NOAA implementation chooses not to use an optional field. Given
that protective action measures are commonly stored in that field,
NOAA has no place to prescribe such actions. I am not sure of their
reason for this implementation detail although it is my understanding
that it is in part due to deficiencies in the legacy equipment which
with they must work and possibly due to their lack of familiarity
with protective actions for NON-weather emergencies. In any case,
their choice to not use an optional field does not make them
non-compliant, just not interoperable with systems built along the
intent of the fields.
I am pursuing OASIS guidance on this issue and will pass along what I
receive.
Regards,
Elysa Jones, Chair
OASIS EM-TC
Engineering Program Manager
Warning Systems, Inc.
256-880-8702 x102
At 07:43 AM 6/2/2006, 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
>
>