OASIS Emergency Management TC

Dear TC -   Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP.   Cheers   Carl Reed, PhD CTO and Executive Director Standards Program Open Geospatial Consortium www.opengeospatial.org The OGC: Making Location Count! --------------------- This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -- Albert Einstein Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. -- Helen Keller

Thanks for catching that, Carl. I do hope they get in touch as they've clearly gotten some bad information. Profiles, as we all understand by now, can be more restrictive than the basic CAP standard but cannot add or change features (except, of course, through the provided extension points of <parameter> and <resource>.) In any event, if they have any interest in maintaining interoperability with their customers and allies they'd do better to transform the global-standard WGS-84 representation in CAP to and from their local CRS on the input and output user interfaces rather than to deviate from the standard. Obviously we don't know all the background here, but the perceived "need" to use some other CRS is generally rooted in a lack of information about how CRSs and projections work. My worst fear would be that this ill-advised approach might be driven by a vendor who hopes to lock them to uncompetitive products by tricking them into to adopting a non-standard format that's misrepresented as "CAP." Which raises an interesting tangential question: What's the OASIS position on non-compliant implementations of OASIS standards? In the long run such investments are their own penalty, of course, but if the standard is misrepresented somewhere does OASIS feel it has any stake in that, adoption-wise? Anyone know? - Art > On Nov 23, 2014, at 16:04, Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org> wrote: > > Dear TC - > > Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP. > > Cheers > > Carl Reed, PhD > CTO and Executive Director Standards Program > Open Geospatial Consortium > www.opengeospatial.org > > The OGC: Making Location Count! > > --------------------- > > This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. > > "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein > "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller

Jamie Clark, OASIS Staff Attorney can weigh in on the question posed below. Thanks, Elysa Jones, Chair OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee Emergency Interoperability Member Section
Original Message----- From: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:emergency@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Art Botterell Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:59 PM To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP in Taiwan Thanks for catching that, Carl. I do hope they get in touch as they've clearly gotten some bad information. Profiles, as we all understand by now, can be more restrictive than the basic CAP standard but cannot add or change features (except, of course, through the provided extension points of <parameter> and <resource>.) In any event, if they have any interest in maintaining interoperability with their customers and allies they'd do better to transform the global-standard WGS-84 representation in CAP to and from their local CRS on the input and output user interfaces rather than to deviate from the standard. Obviously we don't know all the background here, but the perceived "need" to use some other CRS is generally rooted in a lack of information about how CRSs and projections work. My worst fear would be that this ill-advised approach might be driven by a vendor who hopes to lock them to uncompetitive products by tricking them into to adopting a non-standard format that's misrepresented as "CAP." Which raises an interesting tangential question: What's the OASIS position on non-compliant implementations of OASIS standards? In the long run such investments are their own penalty, of course, but if the standard is misrepresented somewhere does OASIS feel it has any stake in that, adoption-wise? Anyone know? - Art > On Nov 23, 2014, at 16:04, Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org> wrote: > > Dear TC - > > Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP. > > Cheers > > Carl Reed, PhD > CTO and Executive Director Standards Program Open Geospatial > Consortium www.opengeospatial.org > > The OGC: Making Location Count! > > --------------------- > > This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. > > "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein > "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life > is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

FYI for 2 reasons. 1) Carol, note the possible new member potential. 2) Aside from 'non-compliant implementations are not covered by the IPR provisions, is there anything else we'd say in reply to Art's question? Essentially, "if an OASIS standard is misrepresented, does OASIS have any stake?" My first thought is that we don't  make representations on whether or not any product complies with one of our standards. Would we say anything at all however if a TC came to us and said that an implementation didn't conform to the standard but claimed that it did?  /chet ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Art Botterell < acb@incident.com > Date: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP in Taiwan To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Thanks for catching that, Carl. I do hope they get in touch as they've clearly gotten some bad information.  Profiles, as we all understand by now, can be more restrictive than the basic CAP standard but cannot add or change features (except, of course, through the provided extension points of <parameter> and <resource>.) In any event, if they have any interest in maintaining interoperability with their customers and allies they'd do better to transform the global-standard WGS-84 representation in CAP to and from their local CRS on the input and output user interfaces rather than to deviate from the standard. Obviously we don't know all the background here, but the perceived "need" to use some other CRS is generally rooted in a lack of information about how CRSs and projections work.  My worst fear would be that this ill-advised approach might be driven by a vendor who hopes to lock them to uncompetitive products by tricking them into to adopting a non-standard format that's misrepresented as "CAP." Which raises an interesting tangential question: What's the OASIS position on non-compliant implementations of OASIS standards?  In the long run such investments are their own penalty, of course, but if the standard is misrepresented somewhere does OASIS feel it has any stake in that, adoption-wise?  Anyone know? - Art > On Nov 23, 2014, at 16:04, Carl Reed < creed@opengeospatial.org > wrote: > > Dear TC - > > Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP. > > Cheers > > Carl Reed, PhD > CTO and Executive Director Standards Program > Open Geospatial Consortium > www.opengeospatial.org > > The OGC: Making Location Count! > > --------------------- > > This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. > > "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein > "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- /chet    [§]  ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration  OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393  Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html   TC Administration information and support is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:     http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter:         http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:   http://facebook.com/oasis.open

Thanks for forwarding, Chet. Scott and I have been talking to NCDR for months now. Carl's email gave me a good excuse to re-start the conversation. ~Carol On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Chet Ensign < chet.ensign@oasis-open.org > wrote: FYI for 2 reasons. 1) Carol, note the possible new member potential. 2) Aside from 'non-compliant implementations are not covered by the IPR provisions, is there anything else we'd say in reply to Art's question? Essentially, "if an OASIS standard is misrepresented, does OASIS have any stake?" My first thought is that we don't  make representations on whether or not any product complies with one of our standards. Would we say anything at all however if a TC came to us and said that an implementation didn't conform to the standard but claimed that it did?  /chet ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Art Botterell < acb@incident.com > Date: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP in Taiwan To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Thanks for catching that, Carl. I do hope they get in touch as they've clearly gotten some bad information.  Profiles, as we all understand by now, can be more restrictive than the basic CAP standard but cannot add or change features (except, of course, through the provided extension points of <parameter> and <resource>.) In any event, if they have any interest in maintaining interoperability with their customers and allies they'd do better to transform the global-standard WGS-84 representation in CAP to and from their local CRS on the input and output user interfaces rather than to deviate from the standard. Obviously we don't know all the background here, but the perceived "need" to use some other CRS is generally rooted in a lack of information about how CRSs and projections work.  My worst fear would be that this ill-advised approach might be driven by a vendor who hopes to lock them to uncompetitive products by tricking them into to adopting a non-standard format that's misrepresented as "CAP." Which raises an interesting tangential question: What's the OASIS position on non-compliant implementations of OASIS standards?  In the long run such investments are their own penalty, of course, but if the standard is misrepresented somewhere does OASIS feel it has any stake in that, adoption-wise?  Anyone know? - Art > On Nov 23, 2014, at 16:04, Carl Reed < creed@opengeospatial.org > wrote: > > Dear TC - > > Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP. > > Cheers > > Carl Reed, PhD > CTO and Executive Director Standards Program > Open Geospatial Consortium > www.opengeospatial.org > > The OGC: Making Location Count! > > --------------------- > > This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. > > "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein > "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- /chet    [§]  ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration  OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393   Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html   TC Administration information and support is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:     http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter:         http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:   http://facebook.com/oasis.open -- Carol Geyer Senior Director, OASIS +1.781.425.5073 x209 (Office) +1.941.284.0403 (Cell) Subscribe to OASIS News and interoperate IoT newsletter Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:     http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter:         http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:   http://facebook.com/oasis.open YouTube:     http://www.youtube.com/oasisopen

[internal confidential] Chet, I saw this, but on my end (as opposed to Carol's), we're treading superlightly for multiple reasons.  I am scheduled to get a telephone download this week from Elysa tomorrow, before I bigfoot into that issue.   I suspect Carl's posted take is correct, and it's not very much of a "legal" issue at all. More generally, yes, if we were told that someone was actively, maliciously misrepresenting our content, we could act.   But we'd be darn slow to want to get into a legal tangle -- our speed usually is more like "send a stiff letter."   J     James Bryce Clark, General Counsel OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society https://www.oasis-open.org/staff     www.twitter.com/JamieXML http://t.sina.cn/jamiexml http://www.slideshare.net/jamiexml http://facebook.com/oasis.open On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Chet Ensign < chet.ensign@oasis-open.org > wrote: FYI for 2 reasons. 1) Carol, note the possible new member potential. 2) Aside from 'non-compliant implementations are not covered by the IPR provisions, is there anything else we'd say in reply to Art's question? Essentially, "if an OASIS standard is misrepresented, does OASIS have any stake?" My first thought is that we don't  make representations on whether or not any product complies with one of our standards. Would we say anything at all however if a TC came to us and said that an implementation didn't conform to the standard but claimed that it did?  /chet ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Art Botterell < acb@incident.com > Date: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP in Taiwan To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Thanks for catching that, Carl. I do hope they get in touch as they've clearly gotten some bad information.  Profiles, as we all understand by now, can be more restrictive than the basic CAP standard but cannot add or change features (except, of course, through the provided extension points of <parameter> and <resource>.) In any event, if they have any interest in maintaining interoperability with their customers and allies they'd do better to transform the global-standard WGS-84 representation in CAP to and from their local CRS on the input and output user interfaces rather than to deviate from the standard. Obviously we don't know all the background here, but the perceived "need" to use some other CRS is generally rooted in a lack of information about how CRSs and projections work.  My worst fear would be that this ill-advised approach might be driven by a vendor who hopes to lock them to uncompetitive products by tricking them into to adopting a non-standard format that's misrepresented as "CAP." Which raises an interesting tangential question: What's the OASIS position on non-compliant implementations of OASIS standards?  In the long run such investments are their own penalty, of course, but if the standard is misrepresented somewhere does OASIS feel it has any stake in that, adoption-wise?  Anyone know? - Art > On Nov 23, 2014, at 16:04, Carl Reed < creed@opengeospatial.org > wrote: > > Dear TC - > > Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP. > > Cheers > > Carl Reed, PhD > CTO and Executive Director Standards Program > Open Geospatial Consortium > www.opengeospatial.org > > The OGC: Making Location Count! > > --------------------- > > This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. > > "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein > "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- /chet    [§]  ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration  OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393   Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html   TC Administration information and support is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:     http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter:         http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:   http://facebook.com/oasis.open

Thanks Jamie. That's what I thought. There was a follow up message later that suggested it is less of a problem. One of the members reassuring Carol that the NCDR is going rogue on them at all.  On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Jamie Clark < jamie.clark@oasis-open.org > wrote: [internal confidential] Chet, I saw this, but on my end (as opposed to Carol's), we're treading superlightly for multiple reasons.  I am scheduled to get a telephone download this week from Elysa tomorrow, before I bigfoot into that issue.   I suspect Carl's posted take is correct, and it's not very much of a "legal" issue at all. More generally, yes, if we were told that someone was actively, maliciously misrepresenting our content, we could act.   But we'd be darn slow to want to get into a legal tangle -- our speed usually is more like "send a stiff letter."   J     James Bryce Clark, General Counsel OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society https://www.oasis-open.org/staff     www.twitter.com/JamieXML http://t.sina.cn/jamiexml http://www.slideshare.net/jamiexml http://facebook.com/oasis.open On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Chet Ensign < chet.ensign@oasis-open.org > wrote: FYI for 2 reasons. 1) Carol, note the possible new member potential. 2) Aside from 'non-compliant implementations are not covered by the IPR provisions, is there anything else we'd say in reply to Art's question? Essentially, "if an OASIS standard is misrepresented, does OASIS have any stake?" My first thought is that we don't  make representations on whether or not any product complies with one of our standards. Would we say anything at all however if a TC came to us and said that an implementation didn't conform to the standard but claimed that it did?  /chet ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Art Botterell < acb@incident.com > Date: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP in Taiwan To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Thanks for catching that, Carl. I do hope they get in touch as they've clearly gotten some bad information.  Profiles, as we all understand by now, can be more restrictive than the basic CAP standard but cannot add or change features (except, of course, through the provided extension points of <parameter> and <resource>.) In any event, if they have any interest in maintaining interoperability with their customers and allies they'd do better to transform the global-standard WGS-84 representation in CAP to and from their local CRS on the input and output user interfaces rather than to deviate from the standard. Obviously we don't know all the background here, but the perceived "need" to use some other CRS is generally rooted in a lack of information about how CRSs and projections work.  My worst fear would be that this ill-advised approach might be driven by a vendor who hopes to lock them to uncompetitive products by tricking them into to adopting a non-standard format that's misrepresented as "CAP." Which raises an interesting tangential question: What's the OASIS position on non-compliant implementations of OASIS standards?  In the long run such investments are their own penalty, of course, but if the standard is misrepresented somewhere does OASIS feel it has any stake in that, adoption-wise?  Anyone know? - Art > On Nov 23, 2014, at 16:04, Carl Reed < creed@opengeospatial.org > wrote: > > Dear TC - > > Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP. > > Cheers > > Carl Reed, PhD > CTO and Executive Director Standards Program > Open Geospatial Consortium > www.opengeospatial.org > > The OGC: Making Location Count! > > --------------------- > > This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. > > "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein > "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- /chet    [§]  ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration  OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393   Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html   TC Administration information and support is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:     http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter:         http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:   http://facebook.com/oasis.open -- /chet    [§]  ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration  OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393  Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html   TC Administration information and support is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:     http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter:         http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:   http://facebook.com/oasis.open

Hi Carl,   Thank you for your notice on this.  I hope they will join our Committee for guidance and insight.  I am copying Dee Schur so she will reach out to them.   I also replied to Art’s message and copied OASIS Legal for direction regarding certain uses/mis-uses of the Standard.    However, on the comment you make in your last statement, I do not agree.  CAP is a very capable Standard for everything from Sensor alerts to notifications.  It is being used for messaging applications beyond alerting with tremendous success.   Cheers,   Elysa Jones, Chair OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee Emergency Interoperability Member Section       From: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:emergency@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Carl Reed Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:05 PM To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency] CAP in Taiwan   Dear TC -   Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP.   Cheers   Carl Reed, PhD CTO and Executive Director Standards Program Open Geospatial Consortium www.opengeospatial.org The OGC: Making Location Count! --------------------- This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller

Elysa -   I think there is a slight misunderstanding. The Taiwan disaster community is not misusing CAP in a legal sense. They have extended CAP as required to use national CRS. I am suspecting they used the appropriate extension mechanism. They are quite good at correctly following international standards. They implement OGC/ISO standards quite well and follow them very closely. We did not have time to “dig” into the actual profile. I was there for other business and this topic just happened to be part of a presentation.   Some are thinking of using CAP for non-alerting/notification messaging. While this may be fine, these few folks are thinking of CAP as a more general messaging encoding for more complex applications for which something like NIEM is more appropriate.   I did not mean to stir the pot!   Cheers Carl     From: Elysa Jones Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 4:35 AM To: 'Carl Reed' ; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Dee Schur' Subject: RE: [emergency] CAP in Taiwan   Hi Carl,   Thank you for your notice on this.  I hope they will join our Committee for guidance and insight.  I am copying Dee Schur so she will reach out to them.   I also replied to Art’s message and copied OASIS Legal for direction regarding certain uses/mis-uses of the Standard.    However, on the comment you make in your last statement, I do not agree.  CAP is a very capable Standard for everything from Sensor alerts to notifications.  It is being used for messaging applications beyond alerting with tremendous success.   Cheers,   Elysa Jones, Chair OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee Emergency Interoperability Member Section       From: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:emergency@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Carl Reed Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:05 PM To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency] CAP in Taiwan   Dear TC -   Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP.   Cheers   Carl Reed, PhD CTO and Executive Director Standards Program Open Geospatial Consortium www.opengeospatial.org The OGC: Making Location Count! --------------------- This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -- Albert Einstein Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. -- Helen Keller