Already evaluated, TractorFax V2.3 met the challenge long ago for standardizing interoperability, scalability, flexibility, and the added value in "affordability across the board"... Even addressing the ever present threat of Agro-terrorism incident prior to (Preparedness Phase), during (Response & Recovery Phase), and in the aftermath (Automated Accountability) of disasters...
According to appointed IM Subject Matter Experts: "The underlying challenge is "how to best bring TractorFax V2.3 from the NIMS Tech Lab to End User reality" in one piece"? Funding & implementing roll-out pilots? Recommendations?
Personally speaking, I'm tired of climbing the tallest tree & shouting all this to DEAF EARS at the local, state, and regional level Decision Makers...
Embarrassment??? Buy now, smart people should know how to best bring TractorFax V2.3 advanced technology & its first of its kind capabilities to the End User marketplace.
Without reinventing the wheel, share with me how can you and yours help?
Jerome "JD" (John Deere) Hamilton, CEO (RET.)
TractorFax COLLABORATIVE Resource Management Tool
Tele: 501-259-5007
Friendly, prime-time Public-Private Partnerships :-)
Facebook: "JD Hamilton"
Enter in key search word box "TractorFax".
Yet, NIMS STEP evaluated vendor product TractorFax V2.3 sits idle (and deployment ready) in the NIMS Tech Lab: that too remains embarrassing! Jerome "JD" (John Deere) Hamilton, CEO (RET.)
TractorFax COLLABORATIVE Resource Management Tool
Tele: 501-259-5007
Friendly, prime-time Public-Private Partnerships :-)
Enter in key search word box "TractorFax".
Dear Tony, Thank you for bringing this topic to our attention in the OASIS EM-TC. CAP is a well-established, internationally adopted standard for alerting that easily accommodates messages for digital signage. It has been used for many years to disseminate alert and notification details to all types of last mile devices to include digital road signs. Please let me know if there is something more we should do to broaden knowledge of the availability and extensibility of CAP. Kind regards, Elysa Jones, Chair OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee (EM-TC) Hi Christian,
Thanks for the dissemination here.
The Study Group 16 rapporteur responsible for
this work item responded with the somewhat
difficult to understand note below. He also
references some obscure PCP-TDR group
that seems to have last met in 2006.
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/pcptdr/Pages/default.aspx
The last email on their list was in 2010.
My tenor was somewhat harsh, but the
group involved here - ETRI - seems to
simply develop its own agendas and work
and simply does what it wants oblivious
to anyone else. It may require some
substantial OASIS or governmental
pressure here to underscore that the
protocol and services originate in
OASIS, and they have an obligation
to collaborate before doing anything.
--tony
Thank you for your profound suggestions. I am a Rapporteur of Q14/16, and added Cc: to WP2/16 Chiarman Mr Jeong because of importance of this correspond. Firlstlly, Q14/16 highly respect CAP, and does not intend to make a document opposed to CAP. New work item plan to be one of specifications of out-of-home services applying CAP specifications. As you mentioned-below, Q14/16 alone can not dealt with critical disseminating protcols like CAP. The new work item will study mechanisms to treat information limited to the small domain where a digital signage terminal is installed in. The _expression_ of the editor's note seems to make you confused, Q14/16 has beforehand surveyed relevant specification including CAP within another work item "Digital signage: Requiremetns of disaster information services" (TD 125-WP2/16). https://www.itu.int/md/dologin_md.asp?lang=en&id=T13-SG16-131028-TD-WP2-0125!!MSW-E Q14/16 reviewed at least documents in the context of Telecommunications for Disaster Relief and Mitigation - Partnership Co-ordination Panel (PCP-TDR) including ITU-T, ETSI and OASIS. Therefore meaning of the editor's note is "review the specifications again carefully from the view points of providing local services." Q14/16 also wants to make and keep good harmonization with Q4/17 and Q11/17 and SG2. BR, Tanikawa
On 11/7/2013 3:18 AM, Christian, Eliot wrote:
As you know, the CAP standard, maintained by OASIS, is also ITU Recommendation X.1303 and one of our key contacts in the ITU is Tony Rutkowski. In his note, quoted below, Tony wants to immediately draw attention to a proposed Work Item in ITU Study Group 15, Multimedia (SG 16). This Work Item concerns how CAP is used with "Digital Signage".
Digital Signage refers to public displays
(e,g, large LED screens used as billboards) that are increasingly installed in public areas such as highways, storefronts, airports, and gas pumps, among many others. As noted in the proposed Work Item (attached), "digital signage can play a crucial role in providing...multimedia-based alerting information". The SG16 website notes: "A large push for standardized digital signage solutions came after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011".
Although the
CAP standard focuses on alerting content rather than on multimedia display, there are many cases where CAP messages are already used with digital signage.
Please respond to Tony (and cc to me) to let him know his concerns are shared . Hopefully he can persuade those involved to fix the immediate problem here.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Tony Rutkowski <tony@yaanatech.com>
wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I apologize for the widely dispersed note here, but SG16 is
>finishing up its work on Friday, and what appears to be an appalling
>lack of collaboration is occurring here that will have multiple
>undesirable results. It is also highly embarrassing.
>
>The Common Alerting Protocol has been developed and pursued by
>OASIS - which in turn has been a coordinating point for much of
>the emergency alerting community, including the WMO. SG17 has
>facilitated that work by republishing CAP as X.1303. I was the
>rapporteur and editor during much of that period - which has now
>been taken on by Youki Kadobayashi.
>
>In reviewing work occurring at the current SG16 meeting,
>I discovered several proposals for new work items introduced by
>ETRI into the meeting relating to many key components of CAP
>implementations. The attached item a Common Alerting Service
>Framework and associated authentication was apparently approved
>by Q14/16 at their meeting this week.
>
>Amazingly, there is an editor's note that "it is necessary to
>survey both disaster relevant ITU-T Recommendations and other
>SDO’s specifications." That should have been done before moving
>forward with any of this SG16 work, and it should have involved
>engagement with the CAP community!
>
>None of the SG16 work on CAP or disaster warning services should
>go forward, these work items should be halted by the SG16 Plenary.
>Much of the work described is already being done within multiple
>forums of the CAP/disaster warning community.
>
>If SG16 desires to be engaged here, it needs to first enter into
>collaboration with Q4/17 and Q11/17 which have been the points
>of contact in the ITU-T, and well as the larger community external
>to the ITU-T. It is worth noting that SG2 is also involved with
>its E.tdr work item and the editor, Ron Roman, is copied.
>
>Important public safety work of this nature must be done
>collaboratively.
>
>best, tony
|