[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] The Modularization of CAP?
On Jun 14, 2004, at 8:29 PM, Art Botterell wrote: > We actually flirted with this approach in the earlier ICS-201 > experiment... as I recall, reusing CAP elements and structures was > surprisingly controversial at that time... but it seemed to work out > OK in that very limited application. Personally, I think it's a good > idea, with one caviat: > > The obvious risk is that, having created a reasonably successful > mouse, we might turn it into an unsatisfactory elephant though the > familiar processes of 'creeping featuritis.' Whatever elegance and > efficiency the CAP design has now stems largely, IMHO, from its clear > focus on interoperability of alert messages. It was never intended or > designed to be the singular answer to all emergency interoperability > needs. Point well taken, and I agree completely with what your statement is protecting. Regardless of what we do, be it anything with modularization or even the next version, the net result must be a simple and easy to use markup language that stays true to its purpose. > Maybe we'd be smart to frame this as a second, distinct project... a > "Common Emergency Coordination Language," say... starting with such > modules as can be abstracted from CAP, but with its own explicit set > of objectives and requirements. Then, once CECL is framed, we can see > whether CAP 2.0 can be implemented efficiently as a CECL profile. Ok - I follow that as well. Can you elaborate just a touch more on this though? I have a mental picture/definition of what a coordination language and/or profile is, but I want to make sure we are using those terms in the same way. > Meanwhile... since as Rex points out, this could be a lengthy > process... we could iterate CAP in the 1.x series if necessary to > address any urgent requirements identified by the user community. > Hopefully such upgrades would be designed with an eye to where CECL is > headed. Completely agree with this, which is why I suggested it (modularization, CECL, or whatever) as a separate focus group/effort. Don't want to disrupt 1.x at all. > - Art > > PS - Of course, if we call it "Cecil" we may be accused of turning a > mouse into a sea-serpent. Still, I think by keeping the two efforts > distinct for now we may serve both current and future users better, > while providing a clear path for unification down the road. > > > At 5:42 PM -0400 6/14/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote: >> I have been spending the last 3 or 4 weeks reading over the CAP spec, >> the comments that have come in, countless articles, and watching >> various groups embrace CAP in many different respects and ways. At >> the same time I have tried to look deeper into where CAP is in the >> grand scheme of things and where it could go in the future - trying >> to do my part at thinking long term, while applying energy now to >> help CAP, the group, and all those involved benefit from the EM TC >> work. >> >> While it would be easy to digress into a discussion about whether CAP >> should go this way or that way, that is not the purpose of the TC. >> Our objective is to stay true to our Charter and "design, develop, >> and release XML Schema-based standards that begin to solve [these] >> real-world problems" in the areas of incident preparedness and >> response. And even more specifically to "provide a framework for data >> exchange, but also for functionality and service accessibility, all >> with the common goal of seamless application and data >> interoperability". Its a tall order, I know. >> >> With that frame of mind/perspective on looking at CAP, I would like >> to propose we look into the possibility of modularizing CAP. Why? >> Well, the reason is actually fairly simple. It is to, in a way that >> would ensure backward's compatibility with 1.0 (of course), break CAP >> into a set of discrete modules that not only provided a better >> framework for future versions, but it also creates a wonderful >> "platform" for our on going standards development by allowing groups >> in the TC to focus on areas of domain expertise. Basically, it would >> allow, for instance, the IF SC to take the "infrastructure" elements >> in CAP, such as <identifier>, <sender>, <sent>, etc., and develop out >> a more feature rich and widely accepted means of transporting CAP >> messages from A to B and even relaying to C. The GIS SC could focus >> on the <area> elements and making sure those are in a place that >> maximizes their usage. Not to mention the fact that any work done in >> this fashion could then be used in other efforts more easily - ours >> as well as others, such as GJXDM for example. >> >> I first saw this tactic used by the HTML Working Group over at the >> W3C. After reformatting HTML 4.01 as an XML application in XHTML 1.0 >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/), they modularized it >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/). Once modularized, not >> only did it provide a more flexible standard to building XHTML >> compliant profiles/languages for things such as mobile phones and >> other devices, but it also gave them a better framework for XHTML 1.1 >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/). >> >> So, why do this? Why now? Our group, while sometimes challenging to >> get everyone on the phone (hint, hint), has grown to include quite a >> group of members from different companies/agencies and different >> domains of expertise. We often spend a lot of timing going back and >> forth trying to condense years of domain expertise into a sentence >> for someone from a different domain - we try, very hard, but it does >> not always work. >> >> Not only would doing this put CAP in a place to work with countless >> new applications (by providing implementers a powerful framework they >> have some control over, rather than locking them into a specific >> schema), but it would allow the TC to create small focus groups where >> members would be parts of efforts that are more related to their >> domain. Thereby creating a happier and more productive group :) Right >> now we are all kinda in a big pot that is a bit hard to stir (or hard >> to stop stirring, like a hornet's nest, if the case may be :) >> >> Anyway - its just an idea I thought I would throw out to see what >> people thought. Rex, I am sure you will understand where this >> mentally projects to, and both the IF SC and GIS SC can probably see >> how their efforts could even be more powerful. Again, the objective >> is nothing more than trying to put CAP in a place where it can reach >> and even greater audience and the TC can be in a position to support >> larger demands from this increased reach. >> >> Comments welcomed and encouraged - Allen >> >> ------------------- >> R. Allen Wyke >> Chair, OASIS Emergency Management TC >> emergency-tc@earthlink.net >> >> >> 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]