OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


It sounds awful but isn't as bad as it sounds:  one ends up 
having lookups of lookups sometimes involving parsing the 
value of a name, extracting a portion of that name, and 
switching on that value (ie, a combination of system 
tables that point to other system tables and naming 
conventions).

This is not the only way of course, but since we work in 
relational systems, it is often useful.

As to sources, keep in mind we are implementing local 
standards, so our sources are a combination of state, 
local agency and Federal codes.  As we are RFP-driven, 
there isn't any other choice.  The Scylla and Charibdis 
of this process is that the more state or local agency 
specific an RFP is, the more implementation work we have 
to do, but the more forward-looking and federally 
standardized (eg, the Department of Interior RFP), the 
less likely we are to bid it because it is almost a 
new and totally different system.  When we approach 
a customer that wants tomorrow today, we have to show
them what is possible today and contract for how long 
it takes to build tomorrow's system.  This works because 
of maintenance agreements which make it cost-effective 
to provide new systems according to the terms of the 
original buy.  I know this is a bit orthogonal to 
the work of this group, but I think it useful to 
understand how the market works in this domain.

Sometimes, top down standards can only reach so far 
and the best one can do is define the interface.

len


From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]

I don't have any objections to this practice for design. My concerns are:

1) Where do we get our external code lists/tables? We already know 
that there will be more than one single source since CBRN is a 
category unto itself, as are several GJXDM-proxied/imported 
standards/code lists (some of which we need to pay for unless there 
is an agreement between standards bodies that provides for sharing 
these resources of which I happen to be unaware) and  then there is 
IEEE 1512 which also entails acquiring three (3) standards. We can't 
refer to black boxes, after all, not if we wish to perform due 
diligence, and even if it were possible to extend blind trust for our 
fellow standards bodies, I would dig my heels in on that for my own 
peace of mind.

2) How do we reliably reference these external code lists/tables? I 
can guarantee that I will recommend against any proxy mechanism that 
contains the chokepoints I have already identified, and I don't think 
we really want to incur the network messaging overhead required to 
convert and validate 1512 alone, notwithstanding the other little 
black holes into which our parsers and validators can disappear.

My points converge on a conclusion I have been coming to for quite a 
while now as I explored the twists and turns of these various 
vocabularies. That conclusion is that we need a reliable way to 
abstract these code lists out of our work and confine the whole 
distribution element to a slightly higher level of abstraction, 
somehow.

Of course, it is the somehow that has me stumped. All I really know 
at this point is that if we continue attempting to cover details of 
vocabularies for every constituency in the distribution header, the 
darn thing is going to be so complicated as to be inoperable period, 
let alone interoperable.

We have neither the time nor the resources to do that, so we might 
want to focus on how to solicit aid from the other standards bodies 
and governmental offices to resolve some of these issues so that we 
can reliably reference these external code lists/tables and harmonise 
the top level base or core ontology of Event/Incident Types in such a 
way that the distribution element only needs to include those 
references while the particular taxonomies for specific 
incidents/events that belong to those top level types can safely be 
relegated to the body of the message.

This same advice applies to the simultaneous discussion we are having 
in regard to the area/areaDesc components.

Ciao,
Rex

At 8:33 AM -0500 3/18/05, Ham, Gary A wrote:
>I agree with Mike, assuming that the actual XML messages remain human
>readable (with the possible exception of the polygons.)  Encapsulation
>of concerns is a good idea, particularly for unstable categorization
>lists. 
>
>Rrepsectfully,
>
>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: Daconta, Michael [mailto:Michael.Daconta@dhs.gov]
>Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 7:11 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
>--------------------------
>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: Fri Mar 18 00:06:51 2005
>Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1
>
>Kon, I don't suppose you expect to win my support by attacking me
>personally... so maybe I'm not clear on what you're trying to achieve
>at this point.  However, if you want to change the spec, all you need
>to do is persuade a majority of the TC.
>
>I have a feeling that underlying this may be some sort of general
>stylistic preference for external tables over enumerations.  If so,
>maybe we ought to discuss that as a general principal, since we use
>enumerations in several places in CAP and in still more in the EDXL
>draft.  If not, maybe you could help me understand by clarifying
>under what circumstances you'd prefer an enumeration to an external
>table and how this circumstance differs from those.
>
>At this point my personal opinion remains that the current
>formulation is a valid use of the enumeration facility within XML and
>the simplest way to express what we mean... and that simpler is
>better.
>
>But again, flailing me for not agreeing with you isn't just
>unpleasant, it's pointless.  Why not let all points of view be heard,
>and then let the TC process decide?
>
>- Art
>
>
>At 12:05 PM -0800 3/17/05, Kon Wilms wrote:
>>On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 10:51 -0800, Art Botterell wrote:
>>>   Well, strictly speaking I don't... the burden of persuasion is on
>>>  the  proponent.  However, I've tried to explain why I don't think
>>>  this  change is necessary or appropriate at this time.  Whether or
>>>  not you  consider mine to be a "good" answer is up to you.
>>
>>You've given a lot of 'no' answers but never any solid reasons.
>>
>>>   Anyway, now that this has been recast as a 2.0 issue we can consider
>
>>>  it in the context of EDXL and at a more appropriate time.
>>
>>Ah, the push-off. Which is exactly how this concluded the last time I
>>brought it up. Except now we actually have a real-life example. What a
>>waste of time.
>>
>>>   >'Things will not interoperate' doesn't qualify as a valid  >answer
>>>  (or excuse).
>>>
>>>   Excuse me?  If interoperability isn't a good answer/excuse, what is
>
>>>  it we're doing here?
>>
>>See my first comment.
>>
>>>   Maybe we need to review the purpose of the "category" element: it's
>
>>>  to provide a simple and predictable taxonomy of events that automated
>
>>>  systems can use to select an appropriate response to receipt of a 
>>>  particular message.  CAP also provides the "event" element to permit
>
>>>  free-form descriptions, but those aren't predictable enough for many
>
>>>  implementions to rely on.
>>
>>What does a predictable taxonomy of events have to do with a lookup
>>table? A lookup table is just a structure for said data, it can't infer
>
>>any level of complexity besides the fact that you have to implement it.
>>
>>>   >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?
>>>
>>>   This pattern of casting a professional discussion in personal terms
>
>>>  is one I've seen increasingly in this TC, and I think it's really 
>>>  regrettable.
>>
>>Then stop doing it. Your comments were out of line. I am not paid to be
>
>>on this group and my membership dues are on my own personal dime.
>>
>>>   No such general equation is suggested.... but your previous note 
>>>  struck me, at least, as suggesting pretty clearly that anyone would 
>>>  be able to add values whenever they were ready and that only "if Dave
>
>>>  needs to be interoperable" would such additions be submitted to the 
>>>  standards process.  If I misunderstood you, I apologize, but if I 
>>>  have that right then, yes, I believe it could lead to a significant 
>>>  loss of interoperability.
>>
>>As it is, there is a loss in interoperability because the spec does not
>
>>currently have a CBRN category. So this is a moot point. At least with
>>abstracting these element lists you keep the core clean and keep the
>>lists potentially easily extensible without many code-level changes
>>being required.
>>
>>Making a change to a table although still out of spec has much less of
>>an impact on parsers (by parsers I mean machine) than does making a
>>change to the core schema, because by the nature of implementing a
>  >parser for tables you are forced to handle these element structures in
>>a way that makes it easy to modify if new elements are introduced (as
>>opposed to having to handler code at all).
>>
>>>   Neither.  I'm just not yet persuaded that there's a substantial 
>>>  problem here in the first place.  And philosophically I'm concerned 
>>>  about the potential water-muddying consequences of making unnecessary
>
>>>  changes.
>>
>>If you fail to be convinced then I quite literally give up.
>>
>>I have already wrappered what I consider 'bad spec' at the code level.
>>At least I can deal with new elements now as they are introduced, and
>>not have to make any changes to my code. I can't say if this is the
>>same about other implementations (but that is their problem, right?).
>>
>>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]