[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Australia input RE: [emergency-cap-profiles] Requirements Outline[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED CAP Profiles SC Members, Good start Elysa. Content
of the draft Requirements Outline seems appropriate to me. I can see the
potential for this Outline to be useful to a Country that is just starting to
develop their CAP Profile and I certainly see value and benefit in developing
and agreeing requirements prior to drafting the actual Country Profile document
into whatever format and structure OASIS will ultimately nominate. However, for Australia’s
current CAP(AU)P development circumstances, I feel that the effort required to
develop a Requirements Outline document for the Australian CAP Profile will NOT
offer Australia any additional benefits at this critical time in our
development cycle that would resolve our Request For Assistance tasks.
I readily admit that the outcomes of the discussions that we conducted
during the Profiles SC call on May 4, 2011 did not resonate with me until I had
some time after the call to consider what had been discussed. Now that I
see this first draft outline format, I believe that this Requirements
Outline activity is not going to meet Australia’s immediate needs. Consequently, during the next SC
Call on May 11, I would like to explore what alternate steps could be
instigated to provide Australia with a template for a Country Profile document
structure that will be preferred by OASIS to insert our proposed profile
information into. The reason for this need are: 1) Australia’s current
progress with development of the CAP(AU)P already positions us past the point
where new requirements will emerge from the CAP Stakeholders in Australia
because the Stakeholders have already reviewed and agreed upon the CAP-AP
Requirements listed in Table 2 of the Discussion Paper (pages 13-17) during
late-2010. 2) As a consequence of that 2010
Stakeholder agreement, I am already developing a final document that captures
all Stakeholder feedback from the Discussion paper review, and my current goal
is to submit a revised document back to my CAP Stakeholders no later than 16
May, in order to provide sufficient time to conclude the review prior to the
end of June 2011. 3) The driver for my activity is
the need to deliver a Stakeholder-endorsed CAP(AU)P document by the end of June
2011, so I must release a document to my Stakeholders by the end of this week
(May 13) to meet that goal. If I commit effort to step backwards and
develop an Australian Requirements Outline document at this time, I will be
unable to meet my schedule milestones. Greg Trott CAP(AU)P Project Manager Australian Government Attorney-General's Department Tel: +61 - 2 - 6141 3904 | Mobile: +61 - 411
278 555 Email: Gregory.Trott@ag.gov.au From: Elysa Jones [mailto:elysajones@yahoo.com] Friends, After a detailed review of the documents
associated with the Canadian, US IPAWS and Australian CAP Profiles, I have
developed the first draft of an outline format to be considered by the
subcommittee. The purpose of this exercise was to identify a format that
could be used to capture the requirements for a Countries particular
constraints to be considered in their National implementation of the CAP
Standard. (Don’t forget to consider how this might apply to an
enterprise or organization.) This information would then be provided to
the SC as a contribution from which the Profile would be developed. Discussions during our last call raised two
very valid points – one, how will the resulting profile document be
maintained and under what authority; and two, couldn’t/shouldn’t
there be different levels of “endorsement” that OASIS might
consider with respect to the profile documents? These are questions I
agreed to take to OASIS staff and report back to the group on the Wed call or
before on the list. We do need to understand that any deviation from the
TC process would likely take TAB approval and be out of scope for this
exercise. I do think that this is worth pursuing due to the unique nature
of the CAP Standard and its relevance and necessary interoperability over
National boundaries. You will note in the outline there are
opportunities to define the goal of the organization seeking profile guidance
to be defined; the maintenance process to be provided; the ownership, copyright
and trademark issues to be provided; interests by joint standards bodies
identified, as well as conformance and testing topics. While the
International Event list is not a specific topic in the outline it would be
described in 3.5 and other sections. My next step will be to go over
these issues with OASIS staff to see what guidance they can provide given the
uniqueness of the CAP Profile efforts. During the call on Wed, I will go over each
of these outline points, relate the OASIS staff guidance (they may attend the
call as well) and take any input on the outline itself. Regards, Elysa If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]