11:00 AM EST SitRep today: New ICS report

["Timothy Grapes" <tgrapes@evotecinc.com>]

All,

Please don't forget our SitRep meeting today.  See below - and attached is
Don's team's work on the ICS example.  I have not yet had the chance to
discuss my initial questions so we'll hit them on the call.  The other
attachments (pdf and excel) relate to my questions below.

Thanks,
    Tim

Tim Grapes

Evotec

(703) 304-4829

If I had six hours to cut down a tree, I'd spend four hours sharpening the
ax.
-Abraham Lincoln

 

From: Timothy Grapes [mailto:tgrapes@evotecinc.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:46 PM
To: 'McGarry, Donald P.'; ''Rob Torchon''
Subject: RE: New ICS report
Importance: High

 

Guys,

Just back from travel to look at this, but before diving deeper I have a
couple stage-setting questions...

 

1.       Have the "problems" below been addressed in this version?

2.       Don, is your purpose to have Rob and I take a glance before sending
to the SitRep SC for their review?

3.       At a glance, I see things both below and on the form I didn't think
were a part of this ICS form, e.g. 33: Today's observed fire behavior... and
others.  So I did some investigation...  Though I think we should probably
move forward with what we have, given the work put in, I'm not sure this
form is the latest / agreed-to 209 version to work from.  The one attached
is the one originally agreed to, and also matches Rob's initial SitRep
mapping excel file.  Not sure where the working version came from, Don.  I
just want to make sure it won't be an issue when practitioners check it out?

a.       I do see now that Don's May message mapping the 209 form did show
your version and I should have caught it at that time..., but for now it's a
question.    

4.       Regarding Rob's weather question, it somewhat goes back to # 4,
where the 209 contains "Weather Concerns" (a driver from the 209 form in the
SitRep requirements, but not included in this working example); and "Weather
Effects".  I don't see these in this working example

a.       Weather concerns was left as a string within SitReps

b.      Weather Effects was determined to be broken out as a complex type in
the "Common Types" reusable component - for use with any EDXL standard.

                                                               i.      What
I don't recall is whether we got this in immediately, or deal with it
later...

 

Anyway, stopped there for now to get a check on these things before diving
deeper.

Thanks,
    Tim

Tim Grapes

Evotec

(703) 304-4829

If I had six hours to cut down a tree, I'd spend four hours sharpening the
ax.
-Abraham Lincoln

 

From: McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:58 AM
To: Timothy Grapes; 'Rob Torchon' (rtorchon@yahoo.com)
Subject: FW: New ICS report

 

Can you take a look at this sample ICS form and let me know if it is ok?

 

-Don

 <mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org> dmcgarry@mitre.org

703-595-9375

 

From: Kaufmann, Max 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 1:23 PM
To: McGarry, Donald P.; Gerschefske, Kelly
Subject: RE: New ICS report

 

Here is the revised ICS report (and a new DE object)

 

Here are all of the problems with said report:

 

The following fields I didn't fill in because I wasn't sure what they
corresponded to:

3: Initial/Update/Final

10: IMT Type

17: Expected containment Date/Time

18: Line to Build (#chains)

20: Declared Controlled

26: Communities/Critical infrastructure Threatened  

29: Resources threatened

31: Resource benefits/objectives (for prescribed/wildland fire use only)

32: Fuels/Materials Involved:

33: Today's observed fire behavior

35: Estimated Control Date and Time

40: Projected incident movement/spread during next operational
period:</b><br/></td>

41: For fire incidents, please describe resistance to control in terms of
Growth Potentential/Difficulty of Terrain.

42:How likely is it that containment/control targets will be met, given the
current resources and suppression/control strategy? 

44: Remarks. Not sure what this corresponds to. Rob suggested
EmergencyResponseIssuesAndOperationalActivities, but I can't find that field
in the schema

46: Cooperating and Assisting Agencies 

49: Sent to. 

 

The following fields I left blank:

11/12 (State/County): We only have the points of these, we would need to
geolocate these points to fill in these fields 

 

Also, "Weather" is just stored as a string, but in the sample form you gave
me, it asks for Temperature/Wind speed and direction/Humidity. I just put
the string in for now, but we should consider changing weather to be a
valuelist.

 

And the humanLifeAndSafetyThreat thing I mentioned earlier

 

From: McGarry, Donald P. 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:45 AM
To: Kaufmann, Max; Gerschefske, Kelly
Subject: RE: New ICS report

 

Sounds good.  Let me know when you get something more.

 

-Don

 <mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org> dmcgarry@mitre.org

703-595-9375

 

From: Kaufmann, Max 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 9:44 AM
To: McGarry, Donald P.; Gerschefske, Kelly
Subject: RE: New ICS report

 

It just didn't like the way some of the variables were declared, it was
actually a pretty easy fix. We are cleaning it up a bit more and then will
send you a revised version.

 

Max 

 

From: McGarry, Donald P. 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:43 AM
To: Gerschefske, Kelly; Kaufmann, Max
Subject: RE: New ICS report

 

I know that XMLSpy uses the Microsoft XML Engine unless you specify another
one at setup...It did run fine on my machine, however I am using XMLSpy.

 

-Don

 <mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org> dmcgarry@mitre.org

703-595-9375

 

From: Gerschefske, Kelly 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:32 AM
To: Kaufmann, Max; McGarry, Donald P.
Subject: Re: New ICS report

 

When I run it in Oxygen, it doesn't compile or run. Are you using XMLSpy
specific functions? Which XSLT engine does Altova use? 

 

From: "Kaufmann, Max" <jkaufmann@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:01:58 -0400
To: Donald McGarry <dmcgarry@mitre.org>
Cc: kwhitacre <kjg@mitre.org>
Subject: New ICS report

 

Hey,

 

I fixed the ICS report so that it works in any major browser (chrome/FF/IE),
at the price of prettiness.

 

The only thing that I think should be changed is that the field to fill in
26) is <HumanLifeAndSafetyThreat>, which is a string. But it would be easier
if it were a value list. It would look something like this: 

<HumanLifeAndSafetyThreat>

<ValueListURI="http://whatever"/>

<Value=" EvacuationsInProgress "/>

</HumanLifeAndSafetyThreat>

 

Max

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>