[emergency-msg] RE: RM action items for Thursday meeting

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Title: [emergency-msg] RE: RM action items for Thursday meeting

Hi Karen, Everyone,

No problem on the length of the message for me, especially compared to some of the recent ones on the Ontolog Forum, to which I owe you and Renato an invitation. Of course, that's just me, and I regularly assemble longer tomes in my email.

I can, however, say that I am sure that we didn't take a formal decision on the namespace issue. My own preference is the second option you describe because I personally think that we will be having more message types arising from experience, and it will be easier to add them with their own namespace.

Regardless, we will need to provide the complete set of referenced schemas in the zipped file we will provide as an integral adjunct of the specification.

Cheers,

Rex

At 12:02 PM +1100 2/7/07, Karen Robinson wrote:

>  
> Hi Tim et al,
>  
> I'll do my best with my action item - it's a
> pretty big job, however.  I may just be able to finish a first
> draft of all the schemas and message examples, but I won't have time
> to check over them all as well.  In any case, I will send you
> what I have, and I will be on the call.
>  
> There is still one issue that I wanted to discuss with
> the group, however, which is related to namespaces & top-level
> elements.  The question is whether to use one namespace for all
> of the message schemas, or to have a separate namespace for each
> message type.
>  
> In the first case, we need a different top-level
> element for each message type.  This is how the current schemas
> in the spec are done - e.g., in the reference schema, the top-level
> element is "EDXL_RM_Reference", in the "Request Resource"
> schema it is "RequestResource", etc.  There are two
> namespaces - the types and elements in the CommonTypes schema belong
> to the "urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:EDXL:RM:1.0" namespace, while
> all other elements belong to the
> "urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:resource:1.0"
> namespace.
>  
> This approach is fine, but it means that if you want
> to validate a message against the reference schema, you have to modify
> the top-level element first.  In my opinion, validating against
> the reference schema instead of a specific message schema is a valid
> thing to want to do, and we should support it (otherwise, there is not
> much point having a generic schema).
>  
> The other approach is where we define a namespace for
> each message type.  All message types can then use the same
> top-level element (e.g., "EDXLResourceMessage"), and all should be
> able to validate against the reference schema.  This is how I was
> initially developing the schemas prior to the face-to-face.  The
> namespace for the reference schema was
> "urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:EDXL:RM:1.0:Reference", while the
> namespaces for individual message schemas were
> "urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:EDXL:RM:1.0:RequestResource",
> "urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:EDXL:RM:1.0:ResponseToRequestResource", etc.
>  
> For the record, the second approach is my preferred
> one.
>  
> My question is: was there a formal decision taken at
> the face-to-face about which approach to take, and the most
> appropriate name(s) for top-level elements and namespaces?  If
> not, the group should probably decide on these things now - and the
> top-level element(s) should presumably be properly defined in the Data
> Dictionary along with all the other elements.  By the way, the
> element reference models, the tables in the message sections and the
> title of Section 4.1.1 all seem to imply that the top-level element is
> always called "ResourceMessage".  My vote would be to name
> this element "EDXLResourceMessage", as this is more consistent
> with the naming of the top-level element in EDXL-DE -
> "EDXLDistribution".
>  
> Sorry for the excessively long email! J
>  
> Karen.
>

---

> From: Timothy Grapes
> [mailto:tgrapes@evotecinc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2007 4:44 AM
> To: Karen Robinson
> Cc: emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RM action items for Thursday
> meeting
>  
> Hi
> Karen,
>  
> We convened
> a short conference call today on RM.  If possible for everyone
> with actions, we would like to convene another call this Thursday with
> the objective of finalizing the RM spec - at least to the point
> where we would feel confident to request a special EM-TC call the
> following week to submit the spec requesting it move into 60-day
> comment.  
>  
> The group
> agreed to adopt the changes stated in your email for Originating and
> Preceding message ID.  Our understanding is that you have taken
> on vetting of the individual message schema instances and message
> examples.  Can you make a Thursday 4:00 PM ET call, and do you
> feel it is reasonable to have those sections
> ready?
>  
> You'll see
> an OASIS meeting request and minutes following.  Please let us
> know what you think.
>  
> Tim Grapes
> Evolution Technologies,
> Inc.
> Office:  (703) 654-6075
> Mobile:  (703) 304-4829
> tgrapes@evotecinc.com
>  
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date:
> 2/6/2007 10:22 AM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

-- 

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