[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - ICS-201-draft0.2.xsd uploaded
And to add my clarifying "two cents;" while ICS forms do currently differ from place to place, the elements associated therein are fairly "doctrinally-standardized," i.e. essential organizational structures and field-name taxonomies are, in the main, common across all forms types regardless of a name element's particular placement within a localized form. Additionally, it is my intuition is that any current regional mis-matches are going to be addressed and standardized as NIMS evolves, and probably pretty quickly; with emphasis on FEMA's version of the doctrine since they are a Federal agency and NIMS embodies a Federal program perspective. My point is it seems more prudent to develop a standardized back-end data-exchange specification that recognizes the organizational and elemental structures of common ICS elements, while remaining transparent to the subjective nature of a particular developer's front-end format. This should allow us to provide near-term as well as scalable support as a standardized data exchange mechanism but leave room for NIMS to "guide" us further as it evolves. That way we won't be painting ourselves into a corner, or appearing to produce yet another product variant that may, or may not, be NIMS compliant in the final analysis. Rick ---- Original Message ----- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> To: "'R. Allen Wyke'" <emergency-tc@earthlink.net> Cc: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:40 AM Subject: RE: [emergency] Groups - ICS-201-draft0.2.xsd uploaded > I am saying don't normatively associate any spec with any other spec > unless you have to. That's all. Don't let me confuse you because > I don't have time to look into ICS. I was responding to Rick > being uncomfortable with specifying XForms. > > XForms is an explicit application language. There are alternatives > to implementing XForms so you should be uncomfortable with that choice. > > Is the process specification meant to be executable or > only an abstraction of a process that can be implemented > differently? Do you *need* a process specification or is > it informative material provided to help other implementors? > > Dare to do less in cases where doing more forces you to > make choices for the implementors that they can better > make for themselves. Do more if the chances are good > that without the extra work, the specification can't > be implemented interoperably at all. Be very certain > about interoperation: systems interoperate; data is > portable. So if you spec interoperations normatively > you are designing the system, not the data. > > len > > -----Original Message----- > From: R. Allen Wyke [mailto:emergency-tc@earthlink.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 1:33 PM > To: Bullard, Claude L (Len) > Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - ICS-201-draft0.2.xsd uploaded > > > Ok, so are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I proposed? It sounds > like you agree that we should not attempt to define an XSD (schema) for > ICS 201, but then you mention preparing a process spec and not address > the front end (GUI), which is what I *think* we can do with XForms. Or > are you saying that even touching this with a 10 foot pole (ie: XForms > too) is way to close? > > Just wanting to make sure I am not misunderstanding. Personally, I > could go either way. I just know that I have a comfort issue with the > XSD. Jury is out on the XForms idea - it was just a thought that I felt > was better than defining an XSD. > > On Apr 1, 2004, at 2:25 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > > I agree with Rick. Don't open liaisons or set dependencies > > on other specifications and standards unless absolutely necessary, > > meaning, your specification can't be used without them. > > > > 1. Your specification will be tied to the evolution of the > > other specification, and > > > > 2. It might lose. > > > > len > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]