Re: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments

[Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>]

Hey Renato,

I appreciate your concern about moving too quickly on the DE and would like 
to know how others feel.  However, there are those that are working hard to 
implement it and need it in their current real world activities.  If we had 
waited on CAP I am afraid we would not have it in wide spread use today 
providing weather and earthquake alert information to save lives.  The 
intent is to bring CAP into alignment with EDXL in future revisions while 
still having it available for the value it currently provides.  Likewise 
without a crystal ball to see where the RM is going, we may miss some 
detail we need in the DE.  However, with the many companies that protoyped 
the RM using both the prototype DE and those that are working with the DE 
as it was put forth for public comment, I am confident that it is a good 
and reasonable effort that is worthy of publishing.  I would feel 
differently if this work came solely out of the TC without any real world 
trials and feedback.

As for the requirements for RM, they can be found in the TC document 
repository in the requirements folder and are dated 10/19.  These were 
posted after the face to face held the same day - many thanks to Julia.

Regards,
Elysa Jones, Chair
OASIS EM-TC
Engineering Program Manager
Warning Systems, Inc.
256-880-8702 x102

At 08:52 PM 11/3/2005, Renato Iannella wrote:


>On 4 Nov 2005, at 03:52, Elysa Jones wrote:
>
>>1.  Infrastructure SC - The DE has now completed the comment period
>>and we reviewed an overview of the comments received.  Mary
>>provided a URL to the comment list.  Art is putting together the
>>spread sheet with all comments for consideration.  As Mary stated
>>on the call, for the EDXL DE 1.0 to be voted on this calendar year,
>>it will have to be approved by the TC to go forward no later than
>>Nov 7.  I would like for the IF-SC to work diligently over the next
>>few days to provide a recommendation to the TC as to the dispense
>>of these comments.  I will call a special meeting of the TC on
>>Tuesday Nov 7 from 11-12 EST for the IF-SC to make their
>>recommendations.  Provided we have a quorum and can agree to the IF- SC 
>>dispense, we could vote at that meeting to go forward with a ballot
>
>My concern is that we seem to be pushing thru EDXL-DE when we have no
>experience on
>how (or if) the work we now commence on EDXL-RM will impact on it.
>
>This was the case for CAP and EDXL - changes proposed in EDXL were
>rejected because
>CAP did things in certain ways.
>
>I am concerned the same will now happen with EDXL-RM - since its
>dependency on EDXL-DE is high.
>
>I suggest the EDXL-DE stay at committee draft for a longer period
>until we are more clear
>on the technical integration with EDXL-RM. This would be the best
>outcome for the community we represent.
>
>
>>2.  Messaging SC - Now that the requirements for Resource has been
>>through the review, I would like to see the messaging SC take over
>>that work.
>
>Where are these Requirements? Were these discussed at the last f2f?
>
>
>Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>National ICT Australia (NICTA)
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
>privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
>use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
>recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
>messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
>data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
>amendment. This notice should not be removed.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>