Re: [emergency-msg] RM elements - Ross/Jon Skeels

[Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>]

On 30 Aug 2006, at 02:25, Rex Brooks wrote:

> Since I've already read the most recent posts in this thread, I  
> know I agree with the result. However, I did want to say that this  
> is at least part what I was thinking about when I suggested the  
> category of "Actors."  The groupings we have for   "Sender" (who  
> sent the message), "Requester" (authorization for the message /  
> request), "SME" (answer questions or provide details), "Approver",  
> or "RespondingOrg" (who responded to the message) still need some  
> thought. I'm not sure how "Owner" fits in here, and my thought is  
> that Renato's question about connecting Actor roles to Resource and  
> the Message is still very apt.

One approach is to support the assignment of roles to the messages,  
but not define the meaning.
That is, our "RM Reference Model" supports the role from the message  
to a party (I use that term as this is what CIQ uses)

Then you can use the NIMS roles (as identifiers) or any other vocab  
of roles.

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia (NICTA)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.