[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Cross Standard Definition of Incident Types
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 13:46, Tom Merkle wrote: > Allen: > I see many initiatives occurring in developing data standards for the > first responders, public health, and transportation areas. In the > tactical approach we can leverage existing work in some of the areas and > create standards where the gaps occur. The major problem with this > approach is trying to keep all inputs synchronized when a change occurs. Exactly - this is dead on what the EM TC has signed up for and is doing. Our Infrastructure Framework SC is responsible for identifying and "mapping" the existing work in a manner we can leverage, which allows the TC to then focus on the gaps. I also completely agree with the major problem, and I can assure you the Chair of the IF SC is fully aware of that challenge. > A well defined parent child structure must be in place to help provide > an impact analysis diagram so all areas impacted may understand the > proposed change. You should hook up with the IF SC Chair, Rick Carlton - this is his baby. We are trying to stay at a level where we can not necessarily solve all the world's problems, but rather improve the situation without causing problems. I will defer to Rick for a more thorough description of his focus. He only let's me talk so much :) > The strategic approach would be to gather all of the various standards > into an umbrella standard that mandates the impact analysis and change > management processes. This would provide the "national level" standard > which is comprised from various standard developing organizations that > provide their expertise in specific areas. > Just some thoughts. And certainly all good ones! > Tom > > --Original Message-- > From: Allen Wyke [mailto:emtc@nc.rr.com] > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:35 PM > To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [emergency] Cross Standard Definition of Incident Types > > > This email is in regards to a question I asked in the agenda of the 7/1 > call > (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency/200307/msg00000.html). > > Here is what I wrote in that original email: > > <snip> > a recent thread within the MSG SC (several messages - starts with > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-msg/200306/msg00024.html) > got my gears turning and I wanted to throw something out to the group > and get feedback. In a nutshell, do we think we will use incident types > across several/all of our standards? If so, should we define those > external to any one standard as part of its own data dictionary? That > way each of our standards could use it as they need/see fit. Note that I > do not want to slow or disrupt CAP with this question, so the "right" > answer might be two pronged (short-term vs. long-term). Art had some > good comments/thoughts on why we need to be VERY careful to even > CONSIDER this, so this is not by any means a definite. Art, can you pull > together notes from that email and reply to this message at some point > with your thoughts? </snip> > > Specifically, I was wondering if it made sense for us to standardize, > either by our own creation or through adoption, of various incident > types. Right now, for instance, CAP specifies some incident types. We do > not want to disrupt or slow down CAP, but we may want to think broader > about incident definitions for CAP 1.1/2.0 and other/future EM TC > standards. > > Thoughts? -- R. Allen Wyke Chair, Emergency Management TC emtc@nc.rr.com http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]