MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL DE - XML Schema Issue
Title: RE: [emergency] EDXL DE - XML Schema Issue
After our meeting Monday, I
thought of why we didn't have incidentID in the DE - because it may
contain payloads related to different incidents. That's why we moved
incidentID to the keyword field.
The question in my mind is - is it good
enough to be an initial standard? We can certainly iron out minor issues in
EDXL-DE 1.1, as long as there are no show-stopping issues
unaddressed.
I have voted yes to both, but I could be
persuaded to change them, if I become convinced that there are any show-stopping
issues.
Patti
From: Ham, Gary A
[mailto:hamg@BATTELLE.ORG]
Sent: Wed 11/9/2005 7:49 AM
To:
Emergency_Mgt_TC TC
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL DE - XML Schema
Issue
I am concerned that what we have put together is not yet ready,
and that
we are taxing those that have volunteered to put the final touches
on
our work too heavily. Do we want to create a situation, like we
did
with CAP 1.0, where something important gets dropped? Personally,
I
would rather wait one more month than get it wrong in some minor,
but
potentially embarrassing, way. Right now, I intend to vote for
the
committee draft, but not for the release for vote. My mind could
be
changed if, in fact, a final product is ready and usable as an
example
before the voting deadline. I am afraid, however, that we do
not have
time to do the quality control review needed to get it all right
before
we put or product out for public
inspection.
Respectfully,
Gary A. Ham
Senior Research
Scientist
Battelle Memorial Institute
540-288-5611
(office)
703-869-6241 (cell)
"You would be surprised what you can
accomplish when you do not care who
gets the credit." - Harry S.
Truman