RE: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>]

While I mostly just watch this discussion, I agree with Mike.  Our
experience with 
fielding records management for police, fire and dispatch systems is 
that we and our customers require external definitions for enumerated 
lists.  The variation among local and state agencies is not easily 
harmonized as these have requirements that vest in both law and 
policy.  So while we are able to create a system that is shrink-wrapped 
to some degree where say NIBRS/UCR elements are called out, the closer 
we get to the local codes, the higher the divergence.  For that reason, 
the business rules and the system lookups are both complex and unyielding 
to simplification.  To ensure that the costs of implementation are 
reasonable even if higher than we like, we separate these out and 
use tools created to work directly with these tables.

It is a common practice in my opinion and does not entail higher 
risks.  If over time, these lists converge as a result of input 
from Federal agencies and global justice committee work, so much 
the better, but until then, ignoring this only delays adoption of 
the main body of the specifications.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety

-----Original Message-----
From: Daconta, Michael [mailto:Michael.Daconta@dhs.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:11 AM
To: acb@incident.com; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1


Hi Everyone,
In terms of general principles, you must also weigh the maturity of the
specification and the probability for the code tables needing to be updated.
Due to the broad scope of the distribution element, I believe the
probability for changing the code tables is high. Therefore the principle of
"separation of concerns" would win out (over simplicity) and make external
code tables a better choice.
Regards,
- Mike