Oops...Re: [emergency] FW: Inter-Governmental Information Sharing Standards: Meeting March 8

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Forgot to say that there will some progress to report on the vocabulary 
front Tuesday. Nothing earthshaking, but better than nothing.

Ciao,
Rex

At 02:25 PM 2/18/2005, Elysa Jones wrote:
>Hey all,
>I tend to agree that we must focus on our work at hand.  Where there are 
>people within OASIS that can carry the CAP banner to the upcoming overseas 
>conferences, I applaud and support those efforts.  However, we have enough 
>on our plate and the workers are few.  We haven't moved the EDXL 
>distribution header along as fast as I had hoped.  I'll be putting out the 
>agenda for the Tues meeting over the weekend and plan to have as an item 
>discussion about a schedule to move EDXL forward.  We agreed in our face 
>to face meeting at XML2004 to leave the policy/vocabulary issues to those 
>that had the proper jurisdiction.  There is no reason we can't have input 
>and be informed, but we need to try to move on.  Let's focus on CAP 1.1 in 
>comment and schedule the EDXL work. Elysa
>
>
>At 01:25 PM 2/18/2005, Art Botterell wrote:
>>Friends -
>>
>>In support of comments by Rex and Len... I wonder if we're in danger of 
>>letting ourselves get bogged down in other folks' turf battles and grand 
>>schemes to the detriment of the specific job we've taken on.
>>
>>Per Len, I'm not sure that a degree of diversity is necessarily a bad 
>>thing, considering the relatively early stage such standards efforts are 
>>really at, and that we have a mechanism (namespaces) for preventing 
>>confusion until the user base / marketplace sorts things out.
>>
>>And per Rex, I'm not sure that either determining the One True Vocabulary 
>>or harmonizing multiple standards efforts is really within this TC's 
>>scope.  Ultimately, only the practitioners can resolve the long-standing 
>>questions of interdisciplinary nomenclature. Personally, I'd be inclined 
>>to leave those questions to policy-level groups like the EIC and, of 
>>course, to the responsible agencies themselves (e.g., the NIMS 
>>Integration team).
>>
>>In particular, I'm not sure a full-scale comparison of CAP, EDXL and 
>>GJXDM (and IEEE 1512?) is really our job.  We've agreed to address a 
>>specific set of requirements, which include a fairly specific example 
>>vocabulary.  In the interests of making tangible progress, might we be 
>>wiser to limit ourselves to searching other standards for existing 
>>equivalents to the particular items in the EDXL Routing Block 
>>requirements as provided by FEMA and EIC?
>>
>>All these larger issues do need attention, at the appropriate time and in 
>>the appropriate venues... but I'm suggesting that this TC may get more 
>>done by "sticking to our knitting" than by letting ourselves be embroiled 
>>into other people's issues.
>>
>>- Art
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>
>
>
>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.
>
>

Rex Brooks
President, CEO, Starbourne Communications Design
Executive Director, Humanmarkup.org, Inc.
1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
510-849-2309