Re: [emergency] IFSC was: RE: [emergency-msg] Any word fromJamie? Notes.

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

If the TC as a whole finds some version of the "Emergency Data 
Exchange Language" framework acceptable, that might suggest several 
specific things the IF SC could take on within layers three and four 
of that model.  For example... documenting and formalizing the 
several established mechanisms for moving CAP and other XML messages 
around... reviewing the "wrapper" format that will be coming in soon 
from the FEMA/EIC work... and developing a specific strategy for 
identity management and access control.  (There are also various 
registry-related ideas pending, but those seem to be more about 
implementation than about standard development.)

By the same token, I expect that FEMA/EIC will be proposing a set of 
messages and an underlying vocabulary (drawing from the GJXDM and 
various other sources) over the next several months for the Messaging 
group to work over.  Plus of course there may be both near-term 
("1.1") CAP issues and a longer-term ("2.0") integration of CAP into 
a larger EDXL framework.

And the GIS team might want to look into how some data models being 
developed for NGA's "Project Homeland" might be integrated with our 
eventing / messaging model, and vice versa.  (Their current working 
draft is available for download in a ZIP file from 
<http://downloads.esri.com/support/datamodels/Local 
Government/HomelandSecurityModel.zip>.)

I do think we may want to consider whether our current subcommittee 
structure is optimal, but it looks like we could make it work if we 
choose to preserve it.

The key to all this, I like to think, is that due in large part to 
our success with CAP we now have active input from FEMA (and through 
it, from all of DHS) and from the EIC to guide us on those 
user-requirements and business-process questions that have held us up 
in the past.

- Art


At 6:21 PM -0700 8/16/04, Kon Wilms wrote:
>Just to add,
>
>Maybe we also should discuss exactly what if anything the IFSC is going
>to accomplish in the near-term future. Up until this point it has
>largely been a do-nothing group (not by intentions, but by
>non-execution). I think it is prime time to give it a good kick in the
>ass and get some direction or abandon it altogether.
>
>My concern is that the longer it continues to produce nothing, the more
>obvious it will become that it is simply another black-hole standards
>group that cannot be relied upon to deliver any goods.
>
>Cheers
>Kon
>
>
>***********************************************************************************
>Information contained in this email message is intended only for use 
>of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this 
>message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent 
>responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby 
>notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
>communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
>communication in error, please immediately notify the 
>postmaster@nds.com and destroy the original message.
>***********************************************************************************
>
>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.