RE: [emergency-msg] Meeting Next Week?

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks Tom,

So noted. Hope you have a productive conference.

Cheers,
Rex

At 10:51 AM -0500 1/3/07, Tom Merkle wrote:
>Rex,
>I'll be in Phoenix attending a conference and may not be able to get on
>the call.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Merkle
>
>CapWIN:        www.capwin.org
>Phone:        (301) 614-3720
>Cell Phone:   (240) 375-1966
>Fax:          (301) 614-0581
>e-mail:        tmerkle@capwin.org
>
>CapWIN
>6305 Ivy Lane Suite 300
>Capital Office Park
>Greenbelt, MD 20770
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:43 AM
>To: emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [emergency-msg] Meeting Next Week?
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>We should have a meeting next week to get back in synch after the
>holidays. The TC , the IF SC and the Adoption SC are all meeting next
>Tuesday morning, so it would be crowded to squeeze our meeting into
>that set of timeslots, plus we need to include Karen and Renato, if
>he can manage it.
>
>So I suggest scheduling our next meeting for
>Thursday Jan 11 at 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. EST.
>
>If that doesn't work for you, please pipe up here and we can discuss it.
>
>If we don't hear from anyone with conflicts for this, I would
>appreciate it if Tim could schedule it for us.
>
>Also, I would appreciate it if anyone has a recollection of any other
>message elements where the ContactInformation package needs to be
>added other than the top level Resource Message unit for each message
>type and in the ResponsibleParty in OwnershipInformation.
>
>In the top level I used the form Contact:ContactInformation but I am
>wondering if it should just be ContactInformation: char since we
>don't have a message element: Contact?
>
>I hesitated to call it ContactRole, (the previous name for the
>relationship between the top level unit and the Contact Information
>cluste).
>
>I did that to avoid repeating an element from further downstream in
>the element chain.
>
>We may need a new label for the person sending the message, or
>responsible for sending the message (like MessageContact or
>MessageContactRole) to avoid having a term that is used in its own
>definition which would have if we used either
>ContactInformation:ContactInformation or
>ContactRole:ContactInformation (in which Contact Role is a defining
>characteristic with a specific list of types).
>
>   I have attached my update of the main Element Reference Model so you
>can see what I have done. I didn't want to update all of the rest of
>the models until I am sure that this much is correctly aligned.
>
>I would also appreciate any discussion about whether we should
>consider adding the ContactInformation package to the
>ResponseInformation unit. My question is to those with more practical
>on-the-ground experience than I have as to whether or not a person
>other that the person sending a response type message would be the
>contact for that information. I certainly don't want to add wrinkles
>where we could get out of synch between the data dictionary, schema
>and models on the basis of my own speculation.
>
>Cheers,
>Rex
>--
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-849-2309


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309