[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
Michael, it's not my intent to disturb you. However, I assume you'd agree that there's also a risk in trying to force what may prove to be unlike concepts into like boxes just for short-term convenience. We need to look carefully at the realities of the real-world applications and processes before reflexively adopting prior art just because "it was there first." I'm sure you're not suggesting the latter approach. Nor have I ever objected to reuse where it's appropriate. - Art At 4:04 PM -0500 12/29/04, Daconta, Michael wrote: >This email thread is disturbing... I would hope this TC can avoid >the "not invented here syndrome" and focus on reusing schema >elements where the concepts are equivalent or can be aligned. >-------------------------- >Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Art Botterell <acb@incident.com> >To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> >Sent: Wed Dec 29 15:43:52 2004 >Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses > >At 9:34 AM -0500 12/29/04, Ham, Gary A wrote: >>To be GJXDM compliant we would probably have to change the "eventType" >>to something more akin to "EmergencyEventTypeCode"... > >I'm not sure whether "compliant" is the right criterion. Our >functional goal is "compatible"... framing it in terms of compliance >transforms a technical issue into a political one. I'm not sure >that's either necessary or wise. > >Not necessary because we have the mechanism of namespaces to allow >domain-specific element design choices to be made "close to the >ground," nearer to functional concerns and farther from bureaucratic >ones. It gives us a viable alternative to the >grand-unified-data-model-of-everything approach, which I'm afraid may >be self-defeating in its scope. > >And not wise for several reasons: > >1) Adopting a stance of "compliance" to one user group... in this >case, the justice community... necessarily distances us a bit from >others... fire, transportation, health, etc. While I realize that >Justice is ascendant in post-9/11 America, we're part of an >international standards organization and those of us who've been at >this for awhile have seen these trends shift back and forth over the >decades. > >2) There's a learning curve here. As Gary points out, just because >the GJXDM was the earliest and largest doesn't mean it got everything >right. We need to leave the door open for learning and improvement. >(After all, the US had the first color television standard in the >world... and as a result spent the next forty years looking at the >worst color tv pictures in the world.) > >3) As mentioned above, the wider the scope of a data model, the more >technical and political inertia it accumulates. Keeping a degree of >compartmentalization lends flexibility, so long as there's a >mechanism (e.g., namespaces) for preventing collisions. > >Now I'm not arguing against adopting an ISO 11179-based naming >scheme. I'm just suggesting that we ought to think carefully and >explicitly before slipping into an assumption that we're somehow >obliged to comply with some other group's scheme. > >- Art >-- >Art Botterell >Common Alerting Protocol Program Manager >Partnership for Public Warning >www.PartnershipForPublicWarning.org >(707) 750-1006 > >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]