RE: Re: [emergency] CAP 1.1 Ballot

[Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>]

Eliot, Below is the OASIS response to the question you raised.  I am 
copying the list in case the membership wants to entertain the suggestion 
below.  Our next opportunity to address this as a TC will be during the 
10/4/05 meeting.  The balloting period is open until this Friday.  If there 
is sufficient interest, we can call a special meeting before Friday to 
discuss.  Please provide your feedback.  Elysa Jones, Chair
OASIS, EM-TC

At 09:05 AM 9/25/2005, Mary McRae wrote:
>  Hi Elysa,
>
>   No, there is no way to make any changes to the document once it has 
> been submitted for member vote. All errata are non-normative.
>Part of the reason for extending the public review to 60 days was that 
>these types of comments would come in during the review
>period rather than while a document was out for vote.
>
>   You can let the "no" vote stand, make the necessary change, and then 
> resubmit for standard vote - while delaying the final result,
>if this is a critical issue it sounds like the best course of action.
>
>   I'm cc'ing Jamie in case there's another alternative I'm overlooking.
>
>Mary
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 6:22 AM
> > To: Mary McRae
> > Subject: Fwd: Re: [emergency] CAP 1.1 Ballot
> >
> > Mary, Is there any way to handle this in this stage of the
> > game with full agreement with the TC?  Elysa
> >
> > >Delivered-To: ejones@warningsystems.com
> > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
> > >Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 06:14:53 -0400
> > >To: Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>
> > >From: Eliot Christian <echristi@usgs.gov>
> > >Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP 1.1 Ballot
> > >Cc: Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>, Suzanne Acar
> > <Suzanne_Acar@ios.doi.gov>,
> > >         David Oppenheimer <oppen@usgs.gov>,
> > >         Stuart Doescher <doescher@usgs.gov>
> > >X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on
> > >gsvaresh02/SERVER/USGS/DOI(Release
> > >6.5.2|June 01, 2004) at
> > >  09/25/2005 06:17:39 AM,
> > >         Serialize by Router on gsvaresh02/SERVER/USGS/DOI(Release
> > > 6.5.2|June 01, 2004) at
> > >  09/25/2005 06:17:47 AM,
> > >         Serialize complete at 09/25/2005 06:17:47 AM
> > >X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.86.2, clamav-milter
> > version 0.86 on
> > >magneto.pns.networktel.net
> > >X-Virus-Status: Clean
> > >X-NAS-Bayes: #0: 1.25688E-180; #1: 1
> > >X-NAS-Classification: 0
> > >X-NAS-MessageID: 45607
> > >X-NAS-Validation: {4FFF9F5B-0862-47C2-858F-59F6F684AC80}
> > >
> > >At 06:35 PM 7/29/2005, Art Botterell wrote:
> > > >[...]
> > > >* Also note that the <certainty> value of "Very Likely"
> > will become
> > > >"Observed" in CAP 1.1.
> > >
> > >It is our position that the "Observed" Certainty value should be an
> > >additional value rather than a replacement for "Very Likely"
> > >(see comment from Dave, USGS implementor of CAP for Earthquakes).
> > >
> > >If this change can be handled as an error in the version 1.1
> > text, to
> > >be corrected via corrigendum, then we can vote "Yes".
> > >
> > >Eliot
> > >
> > >
> > > >----- Forwarded by StuartW Doescher/NMD/USGS/DOI on
> > 09/23/2005 11:26
> > > >AM
> > > -----
> > > >"David Oppenheimer"<oppen@usgs.gov>
> > > >
> > > >09/23/2005 11:00 AM
> > > >Please respond to
> > > ><oppen@usgs.gov>
> > > >
> > > >To        Stuart Doescher <doescher@usgs.gov>
> > > >Subject   RE: FW: DOI  Review of CAP 1.1 by COB Sept 23, 2005
> > > >
> > > >Hello Stuart,
> > > >
> > > >The change that caught our attention is the elimination of
> > the "Very
> > > Likely" Certainty value, and it's replacement with "Observed".  We
> > > recommend the retention of the "Very Likely" certainty value for
> > > backward compatibility with V1.0 and to differentiate between
> > > something that is 50% likely and observed.  That's a rather large
> > > range in confidence, and most ofour real-time locations
> > fall well above 50% likelihood value.
> > > >
> > > >If "Very Likely" is dropped, then the DMIS library will need to be
> > > updated to reflect this change (see discussion below).
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for the opportunity tocomment.
> > > >
> > > >-David
> >
> >
> >