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
I've looked over the list below, and I didn't find any show stoppers,
since a couple of the major items are still largely stylistic
differences in composing the XSD, which I would suggest tend to creep
into this work every time the initial work is done by an individual,
which tends to make us automatically write schema that define
elements locally and and lack a root element because, when we start
out, we just want to get a starting point that validates locally so
we can keep on writing. I dread bringing this up, since I went
through the Requirements Document Template effort, but I think we
need to develop one or two Specification Schema Templates as well as
DOMs and Data Dictionaries that are automatically linked and
generated as we develop them--as starting points from now on, such
that we start with a root element, define our elements globally, and
define our attributes, when we think we absolutely must dip into that
pit of vipers, as attributeGroups, etc. Of course, that's just that
way I do it, and I really don't want to volunteer for this at this
time since I am recovering from an illness and I already have my
plate full again.
However, as long as I am not attempting to do this for the EDXL_DE, I
can put it on my plate as another task that I will get to, perhaps in
time for the EDXL_RM, though I wouldn't want to be on the hook for
that yet.
Ciao,
Rex
At 8:59 AM -0600 11/9/05, Aymond, Patti wrote:
>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
>
>