RE: [emergency] Illogical Naming was: Re: [emergency] Sensors and Systems Charter Starting Point

[Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>]

Most of what we do with our EM standards work involves the movement of 
information in response to a detected event - be that a visual or otherwise 
"sensed" event.  Much of the discussion about "systems" was actually more 
about work flow and dissemination of information during an incident.  We 
may should revisit the terms we use so as not to be misunderstood - say 
sensors and work flow?  We deemed it important to designate sensors 
separately due to the work that is developing in the labs and elsewhere 
that EM standards are needed.  These groups are looking to the TC for 
guidance and having a special place they can discuss their specific needs 
would be helpful.  Comments?  Elysa

At 11:06 AM 7/15/2005, Kon Wilms wrote:
>I guess that proves my point.
>
>Cheers
>Kon
>
>On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 06:58 -0400, Vandame, Richard wrote:
> > Non-sensers, perhaps.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kon Wilms [mailto:kon@datacast.biz]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 5:20 PM
> > To: Rex Brooks; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [emergency] Illogical Naming was: Re: [emergency] Sensors and
> > Systems Charter Starting Point
> >
> > I have to say that I still do not see the logic behind the naming of
> > these focus groups.
> >
> > A sensor network is a system (and may comprise multiple systems), for
> > example. What category do systems that do not make use of sensors fall
> > under?
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php