[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1
While I understand and appreciate the concerns behind this very last minute issue, I would like to remind everyone that this came up only because a number of influences prevented us from voting this specification forward to committee specification status for a 30-day rather than a 60-day public comment period. It seems clear at this point that we won't get there today, and I am as much a reason for that as anyone else since I probably will have to bow out on short notice due to a scheduling conflict brought about by the fact that both of my service appointments with a Comcast technician this weekend were no-shows and this was the first next available time. I had to take it. With two new systems to integrate into my home-office LAN, and projects hanging fire, there was no choice. I suggest that the first issue to be decided today is whether or not we want to approve this and let all issues devolve onto rev 2.0 work, or not. Ciao, Rex At 9:00 AM -0500 3/8/05, Tom Merkle wrote: >I fully concur with Gary's comments. I would like to see an example of >what Kon is suggesting. > > >Regards, > >Tom Merkle > >CapWIN: www.capwin.org >Phone: (301) 614-3720 >Cell Phone: (240) 375-1966 >Fax: (301) 614-0581 >e-mail: tmerkle@capwin.org > >CapWIN >6305 Ivy Lane Suite 300 >Capital Office Park >Greenbelt, MD 20770 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ham, Gary A [mailto:hamg@BATTELLE.ORG] >Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:52 AM >To: Paul Embley; Elysa Jones; Kon Wilms; Art Botterell >Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1 > >My question for Kon. Are you suggesting lookups in the manner of the >GJXDM? Or are you leaving the table out of the spec altogether. For >me, at least, to understand the problem I need to look at you suggested >solution as a schema snippet. Art's approach is OK by me, but so is the >GJXDM approach to lookups. Art's approach has the benefit of >straightforward accountability. The GJXDM approach has better >encapsulation, making maintainability and reuse more effective. Is >yours a third approach? If, so what does it specifically look like? > >Respectfully, > >Gary A. Ham >Senior Research Scientist >Battelle Memorial Institute >540-288-5611 (office) >703-869-6241 (cell) >"You would be surprised what you can accomplish when you do not care who >gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Embley [mailto:pembley@mstar.net] >Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 6:59 AM >To: 'Elysa Jones'; 'Kon Wilms'; 'Art Botterell' >Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1 > > >The GJXDM uses quite a few lookup tables. The biggest problem we've had >is trying to get authoritative sources to take responsibility for them. >An example is the FBI and the NCIC code lookups. Only recently have >they committed to take on this task. Other examples are some FIPS, ISO >and USPS tables. We reference them externally. > >Paul S. Embley >Practitioner Resource Group >G&H International Services, Inc. >502.695.7733 (office) >502.545.0127 (cell) >502.695.0055 (fax) >pembley@ghinternational.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 5:26 AM >To: Kon Wilms; Art Botterell >Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1 > >Okay guys - truce! Let's hear from some other implementors. What about > >it? David Ellis, Gary Ham, Rob Torchon, Tom Merkle, Paul Embley, >Michelle >Raymond, Walid Ramadan, Jeff Kyser, Sukumar and you folks as IEM as a >minimum - what do you think??? Elysa > >At 10:44 PM 3/7/2005, Kon Wilms wrote: >>On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 21:56 -0500, Art Botterell wrote: > > > At 2:31 PM -0800 3/7/05, Kon Wilms wrote: >> > >I've asked a number of times in this thread for clarification as to > >> > >why such a method would not be a good idea - all I've received has >> > >been >what >> > >seems like an unwillingness to listen. >> > >> > Please don't confuse not agreeing with not listening. The TC isn't >> >>You don't have to agree, but you do have to give me a good answer why >>you think it won't work and/or is a bad idea. I have yet to see even >>one, even after I have listed both advantages and disadvantages to this > >>approach. 'Things will not interoperate' doesn't qualify as a valid >>answer (or excuse). >> >> > obliged to accept a change just because someone suggests it. If you > >> > want a change, it's up to you to persuade the TC that it's a good >> > idea. >> >>This is right up there with accusing me of using this to push an >>implementation issue to the standards level. What's up with this? >> >> > >However, with a lookup table in place people like Dave would be >> > >able to make use of their CBRN category immediately without being >> > >out of spec. >> > >> > We aren't trying to make it easy to add new categories... in fact, >> > we're trying to make it hard. Our goal is interoperability, which >> > wouldn't be served by letting some systems adopt random categories >> > that others won't understand. >> >>I'm constantly amazed at how the concept of lookup table usage is >>equated to allowing people to insert random categories into their >>messages and creating some sort of interop disaster. Please stop the >>FUD. >> >> > CAP isn't meant to be everything to everyone... it's meant to be the > >> > SAME thing to everyone. >> >>Same as above. >> >> > If Dave DIDN'T feel he needed to interoperate he could just make up >> > his own XML format and not bother constraining himself to the CAP >> > spec. But the last thing we'd want would be messages floating >> > around that claimed to be CAP, but actually were non-interoperable >> > variants. >> >>Same as above. >> >>The theme here seems to be that of portraying the usage of a lookup >>table to be something that would be a source of all manner of 'very bad > >>things', none of which are based in fact. >> >>Please explain to me how a fixed lookup table for categories would >>allow for random category insertion. >> >>I have to ask - are you intentionally muddying the water because you >>don't like this proposal, or is there a solid technical reason for this > >>being a bad approach to solving this problem? >> >>Cheers >>Kon >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]