I
will be there.
I
was at the last two (the one that was cancelled and the one
before that). Comments below…
From: Jeff Waters [mailto:jeffrywaters@gmail.com]
Sent: September 25, 2012 12:59 PM
To: Paulsen,Norm [Ontario]; Doug Allport; Jacob
Westfall
Cc: rexb@starbourne.com; gary.ham@eyestreet.com
Subject: Next RIM meeting to continue Layers
discussion?
Hi, Norm:
Last time we talked, we discussed the notion of following up
with Jacob and others to further the discussion on Layers.
Gary, Rex and I met at the IF meeting today and we thought it
might be good to continue the Layers discussion at our next
RIM meeting on Oct 4 (https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-rim/event.php?event_id=33208)
Would you all be interested in attending?
I've included a few notes below to motivate the discussion.
Thanks.
--Jeff
Here are a few points that we may be in agreement on:
(a) Layers is a good concept for providing business-level
extensions Agree
(b) The Layers concept is currently used in CAP but has
applicability to other EDXL standards Agree
(c) The Layers concept depends on Parameter Name/Value
elements and certain other elements currently available in CAP In general, Layers aren’t necessarily
dependent on such elements but Layer’s in CAP are, as that
is the mechanism in CAP for it. How CAP does it, is a good
mix of format and structure control with room for unlimited
business level extensions. If those principles appear in
other Mechanisms then that is the main point. Since CAP
already does it maybe another mechanism doesn’t need to be
used/created however that is what this group is trying to
figure out.
(d) To use the Layers concept in other EDXL standards,
we need to have similar support in the EDXL Common Types While Common Types is one place to
consider this support, I would just want to be sure the we
don’t lose something in the process. So Common Types is the
obvious starting place and maybe the finishing place, but to
get there I would ask…can I do this? can I do that? etc… in
the Common Types mechanism (with the flexibility that I can
do it in CAP).
Where I think we may have some differing opinions is on
(1) the best way to represent Layers in the EDXL Common Types
and If Common Types works for me
then great. I’m not yet sold but am willing to explore.
(2) whether or not the Layers should be used in the DE. I don’t look at it this way. Basically
XML, any XML, allows for business extensions (extensibility
is one of the basic principles behind XML). So if a specific
use XML standard doesn’t allow for extensions then for me it
fails. Conversely, if the specific use XML standard can’t
handle basic alerting (without having to resort to
extensions) then it too fails. CAP doesn’t fail on either
point. EDXL-DE in my opinion needs the mechanism just on
principle (whether a Layer is ever used there or not). CAP
controls the formatting of the extensions which is important
to keep CAP from getting out of control. It’s the old,
everybody slap a tag around whatever you have and call it
XML philosophy we want to avoid.
So I think those would be the two major topics of discussion.
The first topic
is a little difficult to talk about in the abstract. If you
have a draft schema concept of how you think the Layers should
be implemented,
that would be great. We could review it at the meeting or in
advance.
Time
and resources makes the deadline of the next call impossible
for me to create such a thing. All I have and what I could
do is talk about the “business” and “technical” separation
of Layers in our Canadian CAP to get the abstract behind us.
I would discuss the principles generically/abstractly while
using the CAP example. As for a Common Solution across the
family of Standards, Jake would be more experienced than me
in the technical side of those in order to make something
applicable for all.
I’ll
be there Oct 4th and I hope to update my Layer
doc.
Norm