re: CAP-AP Question 1 - Clarification of CAP <info> block issue - Response to Doug Allport's input

[gregory.trott@ag.gov.au]

Doug,

Firstly, thank you for you insight on the single <info> block issue.  The Canadian approach continues to make sense to me and my initial approach to the Australian CAP Stakeholders in late-2010 certainly did not object to the Canadian approach, with only one Australian Stakeholder highlighting the concern I stated in my email to the EM-TC of 20 Apr (Email #370048: Subject: CAP-AP Question 1 - Clarification of CAP <info> block issue).  The need to create an <info> block per each disparate partner does seem to be redundant when I focus on the concept you describe that distribution of a single CAP message occurs through "all channels and distribution mediums".   

Secondly, as far as a use case is concerned for each disparate partner, I do not yet have one developed in detail; however, in Attachment 1 of the file I have posted in the Profiles SC Documents (titled "CAP-AP Brief.pdf" - see pages 6-8), there is a short synopsis of the Australian CAP Scene that Identifies the various "partner" organisations that would be addressed in such a use case (except for NICTA, who are no longer involved in CAP).  Each of these organisations currently operate a variant of the CAPv1.0 or v1.1 protocol within their alerting and early warning system, and it is only the Emergency Alert and Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) systems that are broadly adopted in every State and Territory of Australia except for Western Australia who operate State Alert (but does use the same BOM system for weather alerts).

Finally, for you information, the CAP-AP Brief file also provides a summary of the development process we are undertaking in Australia to produce the CAP-AP document (pages 2-4).

Regards,

Greg Trott
CAP-AP Project Manager