[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] FW: [CAP] Unique Message Identifiers in CAP
On Mar 3, 2004, at 10:39 AM, Rex Brooks wrote: > In other words, the more of the discussion we can have here, the less > we need to discuss in the meeting. I completely agree with this. Something we have not done very well is debate and discuss topics via the list. Yes, we all have day jobs that keep us busy, but at the same time it is clear that when we are the point of voting, a lot of people either do not fully understand the issues, or the people that understand have not fully discussed them. We seem to take the "vote on it and move on" rather than "address the issue, which may mean a vote" approach, which as Chair concerns me. It is a train wreck waiting to happen. That being said, consider this nothing more than some stimulation to discuss topics in more detail and at greater lengths on the list. > My own take on these is that they fall within the implementation > guide/note, not as part of the spec. Or perhaps, these are candidates > for the FAQ. I don't personally think that these are candidates for > the the factsheet. I agree these are not fact sheet items, but I do not agree they are implementation guide/note items. This is a normative topic that should be discussed in the spec - at least better than it is today. The spec MUST define the hard requirements, and the implementation guide should ONLY be there to support how those hard requirements are implemented. It should NOT start to define its own requirements (ie: the spec should not say to be unique and imp guide tells how to be unique, but rather the spec should define how to be unique and the imp guide describe how to build that uniqueness into an implementation) > You are correct though, IMHO, that we do have more immediately > important issues to wrestle with, including the ICS 201, to which some > DHS developments pertain, such as being included in the National > Incident Management System, NIMS. I would, in that connection, > appreciate any news that can be forwarded or presented to us. I somewhat disagree with this comment. That specifically we have "more immediately important issues." Our most important issue is to ensure CAP is done right, is successful, and is adopted by not just government projects, but also commercial applications that target all sectors that deal with crisis. This is why the TC was started. Trying to take on another work, while we are still getting our sea legs with CAP, is a huge no-no. They right books about this (read Crossing the Chasm when you have a chance). > I am personally looking at developing a voice-controlled application > of that form within a web services context, but it is definitely an > overlap issue for WML/HTML, and might very well be combined with > closed circuit video or Simultaneously Multimedia Integration > Language, SMIL, apps. Of course, it's important to focus on what can > be achieved in the short term, in terms of specification work we can > add for the simplest technologies first, if our work is even needed in > those areas, or what. It's the OR WHAT that concerns me, so I think we > should at least start the discussion on IF SC next week as well. Now this is what I agree with. I too have a million other things I want or would rather the group to be working on, but right now we need to ensure CAP is best position for success, and as such, while it is great to have offline discussions on other topics, we must focus on it. -- R. Allen Wyke Chair, OASIS Emergency Management TC emergency-tc@earthlink.net
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]