[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] EM-Msg: Meeting Tomorrow_Veterans Day? Fwd: Re:CAP comments summary
Thanks Don, Steve, After Jacob posted this comment, I did mention in the ensuing discussion that I recalled some previous discussion about allowing extensions from the process of developing CAP 1.0, but I believe I only mentioned that our previous discussion had resulted in not including <xs:any>. I did not recall the exact reasons. Now that Steve's points refresh my memory, I recall similar arguments being made that it would open the door to too many possible problematic extensions. I look forward to discussing this again as we address it in our recommendation. I should be clear that our current agenda is to simply recommend to the TC whether we think it is advisable to start work on a liimited revision of CAP, in a 1.2 version, or a more thorough CAP 2.0 version. I agree, personally, that I don't think it is wise for a CAP 1.2, but I think it should be on the table for 2.0 when we take on that work. I say that not because I think it is likely to make the cut, only because I think it is premature to rule it out at this point. Cheers, Rex However, At 1:06 PM -0500 11/10/08, Ponikvar, Donald <CTR> wrote: >Rex- > >Sorry I didn't send this to you earlier, but we have been inundated here >with the preparations for transition since the presidential election. >But when I saw the proposed agenda for tomorrow, I had to forward this >to you. > >I circulated your recent discussion regarding the use of <xs:any> to >some of our techno-wizards at DNDO, who are presently incorporating CAP >1.1 into a series of NIEM IEPDs for the Department of Homeland Security. >They all feel that the use of xs:any is not an advisable practice. The >following text is from Steve Streetman, one of our lead implementers, >and a Board member on the Emergency Interoperability Consortium. In >response to my question about the discussion you had with Jacob >Westfall, he describes much more eloquently than I the issues as we see >them. Please feel free to contact Steve directly to continue the >discussion. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Don - > >I do have an opinion. First, NIEM prohibits the use of <xs:any> because >it allows someone to put anything they want in that place. The benefit >is that someone can add their own specific data right inline with the >standard without being invalid. There are several downsides: >1 - a parser now has to deal with a lot of embedded stuff it doesn't >know is there and be able to ignore it (potential interoperability >problems) >2 - (we saw this in ASP) vendors will duplicate stuff in the standard in >their own proprietary format rather than using the standard tags and >then not test the standard tags because they don't use them themselves. > >3 - (we saw this in ASP, too) vendors can put immense amounts of data in >the xs:any section so that the files get bloated with non-standard data. > >I think 1-3 are sufficient to discourage us from allowing xs:any in a >standard. > >By the way, as the discussion below shows, CAP does not allow xs:any. >So this isn't the way [David] Lamensdorf has gone astray [in their >implementation of CAP for the LA interoperability demonstration]. He >has gone astray by: > >1 - flooding CAP bandwidth with non-alarms >2 - stuffing sensor data where it doesn't belong and where its structure >cannot be adequately reflected >3 - inserting into the CAP milieu things that look like alerts but have >not been validated and, in fact, are not threats. > >If you have a choice just say no to xs:any. > >Steve > >Steven S. Streetman >SETA Support to System Architecture Directorate Domestic Nuclear >Detection Office >(202) 254-7430 > >Mailing Address: >Steve Streetman/ DNDO SEAD >Mail Stop: 7100 >Department of Homeland Security >245 Murray Lane, Bldg 410 >Washington, D.C. 20528 > >steven.streetman@associates.dhs.gov > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >Don Ponikvar > >Donald R. Ponikvar, PhD >SETA Support, Mission Management Directorate >DHS/Domestic Nuclear Detection Office >Washington, DC 20528 > >voice: 202-254-7530 >fax: 202-254-7751 >Blackberry: 202-368-4922 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: >emergency-return-1131-Donald.Ponikvar=associates.dhs.gov@lists.oasis-ope >n.org >[mailto:emergency-return-1131-Donald.Ponikvar=associates.dhs.gov@lists.o >asis-open.org] On Behalf Of Rex Brooks >Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 12:51 PM >To: emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: [emergency] EM-Msg: Meeting Tomorrow_Veterans Day? Fwd: Re: CAP >comments summary > >Hi Everyone, > >Please excuse me for combining several issues into one message, but >it seems most efficient. > >1. For the EM-Msg SC, Tuesday is Veterans Day. We have a meeting >scheduled so it is late to be changing schedules, yet I do not want >to disrespect our veterans. However, neither do I want to enforce >our holidays on our internatonal members, so if you wish to observe >the holiday, please do, and if we do not have a quorum tomorrow, >we'll cancell the meeting or discuss whatever issues remain but we >will not be able to vote on a recommendation to the TC. If we fail to >reach quorum, which I expect, I would like to schedule another >meeting next Tuesday to conclude our work so that we can make our >recommendation to the TC at the next TC meeting. In the meantime, I >would like to discuss the remaining issue (See 3. below) and our >recommendation on the mailing list. > >2. For the TC, I am forwarding the message from Jacob Westfall with >includes two attachments, Cap-NextGen-CommentsList_v1.4 and >CAP-Comments Summary.doc so that you can see the documents on which >the EM-Msg will base its recommendation. (Note: See 3 for minor >clarification). > >3. For both the TC and the EM-Msg SC, I uploaded a slightly different >version of the CAP-NextGen-CommentsList_v1.4 to the EM-Msg Documents >Repository that has one additional comment. #31: to add extensibility >using <xs:any##other minOccurs="0"/>. > >Cheers, >Rex > >>Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:03:15 -0500 >>From: Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz> >>To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> >>Subject: Re: CAP comments summary >>Organization: JPW >>X-Nonspam: Statistical 55% >> >>Hi, >> Sorry this comments summary took so long I was swamped last >>week. Attached is version 1.4 of the comments list building on 1.3 >>that you posted. I've put the comments into categories for Best >>Practice, 1.2 and 2.0 I've also merged the comment 17 subset in as >>well. I cleaned up the formatting and values. Also attached is a >>1 page summary document. It also shows the categories and has the >>comment numbers and brief description for each. Many comments are >>duplicates and so an entry may have several comment numbers attached. >> Take a look and let me know if I've missed anything or there >>are other changes. Thanks, >> >>-- >>jake@jpw.biz >>-- >> >> >> > > >-- >Rex Brooks >President, CEO >Starbourne Communications Design >GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >Berkeley, CA 94702 >Tel: 510-898-0670 -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]