OASIS Emergency Management TC

Illogical Naming was: Re: [emergency] Sensors and Systems Charter Starting Point

  • 1.  Illogical Naming was: Re: [emergency] Sensors and Systems Charter Starting Point

    Posted 07-14-2005 21:20
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Illogical Naming was: Re: [emergency] Sensors and Systems Charter Starting Point


    I have to say that I still do not see the logic behind the naming of
    these focus groups. 
    
    A sensor network is a system (and may comprise multiple systems), for
    example. What category do systems that do not make use of sensors fall
    under?
    
    Cheers
    Kon
    
    > Hi Folks,
    > 
    > I sent this out as a start on a Charter for Sensors and Systems with 
    > a promise to expand on it to Michelle and Dave, Tuesday. I haven't 
    > gotten back to it, so I am sending it along now.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > >As a statement of purpose I offer the following only as a point of
    > >departure, a point to start from.
    > >
    > >"The purpose of the Sensors and Systems Subcommittee is to survey
    > >existing standards, determine if they are sufficient for Emergency
    > >Management TC purposes, and recommend how to use them, or, if we
    > >determine that they are insufficient, recommend what the requirements
    > >for a sufficient specification are, and a plan to create said
    > >specification or form a necessary liaison with the group we determine
    > >is better able to create it, so that the requirements we determine
    > >are met."
    > >
    > >I think it would be just as valid to say that we should determine
    > >requirements first, then see if those are met be existing
    > >specifications, I just thought it was shorter to imply that and only
    > >state it in the case that the existing specifications prove
    > >insufficient. However, we are likely to look at existing specs first
    > >anyway just to see what other groups have set out as requirements. I
    > >tend to think of requirements as scope, but I am also perfectly
    > willing to adjust that, too.
    > 
    > Dave is in San Diego on work trip and may or may not be able to join 
    > in. Haven't heard from Michelle.
    > 
    > Tom Merkle is also out on work related meetings, so I can speak for 
    > Infrastructure, too.
    
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]