[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [sia-pilot6] [emergency] EDXL-DE routing and valueListUrn
Rex - Yup to which thought :-) And Pericles, do you know Jeff Lansing? He works for SYS Technologies and has attended many OGC meetings. Regards Carl Also, > Yup. > > At 10:14 AM -0700 3/21/06, Carl Reed OGC Account wrote: >>What he said . . . >> >>And this also gets to the issue we discussed in the IF SC call >>today. There is considerable misunderstanding and need for education >>in the market place regarding the use and implementation of EDXL. >>Part of this education is that EDXL is a transport mechanism and >>must/can be viewed as independent from the technology implementation >>infrastructure. It should not matter if the enterprise (in the >>virtual sense) is implementing against a middleware bus, using >>SOAP/WSDL/UDDI, using ebRIM/XML, using an OGC Catalog, using the >>COMCARE EPAD application, using Java enterprise beans, etc. I view >>EDXL as technology implementation neutral - as it should be. >> >>Am I wrong in thinking this? >> >>Also, my previous email was more about making sure that the >>discussions in the EM TC on EDXL do not totally go totally US >>DHS/DoD centric. I understand the immediate requirement but we >>cannot loose sight of the bigger picture. For example, I would love >>to be able to recommend EDXL to ORCHESTRA in Europe. >> >>Cheers >> >>Carl >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com> >>To: "SIA Pilot-6" <sia-pilot6@humanml.cim3.net>; "Carl Reed OGC >>Account" <creed@opengeospatial.org>; <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> >>Cc: "Haleftiras, Pericles" <phaleftiras@systechnologies.com>; >>"Glaser, Ronald" <rfglase@sandia.gov> >>Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 5:33 PM >>Subject: [emergency] Re: [sia-pilot6] [emergency] EDXL-DE routing >>and valueListUrn >> >>>I don't think Carl misunderstood that different valueListUrns are >>>possible. Of course, I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I think >>>Carl's concern is that some people may think that Dave's proposal >>>was for a single valueListUrn. I do not think Dave is doing that. I >>>think Dave is responding to the call for various groups to start >>>producing, publishing and maintaining these necessary valueListUrns >>>so that we can start using them in EDXL_DE routed messages. >>> >>>All of the international groups and constituencies mentioned need >>>to be informed that it is now incumbent upon them to provide these >>>semantic resources so that their systems, be they SensorNets or >>>weatherAlerts, can be properly connected through our Emergency >>>Response Networks. >>> >>>Ciao, >>>Rex >>> >>>At 5:00 PM -0700 3/20/06, Ellis, David wrote: >>>>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >>>>boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C64C7A.707355BB" >>>> >>>>Carl >>>> >>>>All of scenarios you have proposed could use seperate valueListUrn >>>>to control distribution of data within defined Area of >>>>Responsiblities. If transfer of data is needed between these >>>>AORs, methods for exchanging messages are avaiable. When can we >>>>talk about this. I believe all of your domain issues are >>>>potential misunderstandings how routing is accomplished. >>>>David E. Ellis >>>>Information Management Architect >>>>(505) 844-6697 >>>> >>>> >>>>From: Carl Reed OGC Account [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org] >>>>Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 4:20 PM >>>>To: Ellis, David; SIA Pilot-6; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>Cc: Harry Haury; Haleftiras, Pericles; Glaser, Ronald >>>>Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL-DE routing and valueListUrn >>>> >>>>David - >>>> >>>>While I understand the urgency and while I do not necessarily disagree >>>> with >>>>the contents of your slides on a National Effort for Emergency Data >>>>Distribution, I would like to add a few words of caution. >>>> >>>>First, what you have outlined are uses cases and requirements for one >>>> domain >>>>of use - alerts as related to secure US DoD sensor nets. I deal with >>>> folks >>>>doing sensor systems and networks in a number of other countries - all >>>>civilian. Any of these applications using sensors can create alerts. >>>> For >>>>example, a new water portal in Canada that will send alerts based on >>>> stream >>>>flow gauges, traffic alerts being generated by the new generation of >>>> ITS >>>>capabilities, weather alerts, and systems function alerts being >>>> generated by >>>>transducers, and so forth. We cannot loose sight of all the other >>>> potential >>>>use cases that drives the requirements for EDXL - now and in the >>>> future. >>>> >>>>Second, and related to the first, is the fact that OASIS is an >>>> international >>>>standards organization. As such, we cannot ignore requirements for >>>> using >>>>EDXL that may be extremely viable in other countries. It is unfortunate >>>> that >>>>we have had little input from organizations in other countries that >>>> have >>>>requirements similar to the US DoD. That is why I am very pleased with >>>> the >>>>progress of the Sensor Standards Harmonization work that NIST is >>>>spearheading. >>>> >>>>Third, we would be remiss in ignoring the potential for alerts coming >>>> from >>>>the emerging sensor nets being designed, built, and fairly recently >>>> deployed >>>>for home systems and office buildings (office sensor networks are much >>>> more >>>>mature). See >>>><http://www.usipv6.com/CES_Presentations/CES_Itaru_Mimura.pdf>http://www.usipv6.com/CES_Presentations/CES_Itaru_Mimura.pdf >>>>as >>>>well as all the work being done at UCLA (SOS) and Sun (SUN SPOT). These >>>>systems are envisioned as being able to automatically generate alerts >>>> (fire, >>>>carbon monoxide, health, etc). >>>> >>>>Finally, and anyone (someone) correct me if I am wrong, but perhaps the >>>>COMCARE EPAD system would be a repository/registry solution. >>>> >>>>So, I agree that current DHS and DoD requirements are very valid and >>>> those >>>>requirements must be answered by EDXL. But let's make sure we remain >>>>balanced in our approach so that other communities outside DoD and DHS >>>> are >>>>also fairly represented at that CAP and EDXL have used well beyond. >>>> >>>>Cheers >>>> >>>>Carl >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "Ellis, David" <dellis@sandia.gov> >>>>To: "SIA Pilot-6" <sia-pilot6@humanml.cim3.net>; >>>><emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>>Cc: "Harry Haury" <hhaury@nuparadigm.com>; "Haleftiras, Pericles" >>>><phaleftiras@systechnologies.com>; "Glaser, Ronald" >>>> <rfglase@sandia.gov> >>>>Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:11 AM >>>>Subject: [emergency] EDXL-DE routing and valueListUrn >>>> >>>> >>>>ALL >>>> >>>>I have a reasonably mature strategy for creating valueListUrn lists and >>>>how they can be used to deploy a national architecture for Alerting and >>>>Warning. I have been trying to develop this to support Chips Disaster >>>>Management efforts (e.g. EDXL-RM) and to allow for national sensor >>>>capabilities (e.g. DNDO) to have the EDXL-DE routing system (execution >>>>context) which provides the following capabilities: >>>> >>>>1. Allow for establishment of Communities of Interest (COIs) where >>>>appropriate authority can establish roles of entities, information >>>>routing rules between them and issue certificate to ensure >>>>authentication and authorization. >>>>2. Permit interaction between COIs to instantiate robust MOUs enforced >>>>by execution context allowing creation of national information grid. >>>>3. Permit secure delivery of multiple levels of sensitive information >>>>via signing, encryption and labeling within the EDXL-DE. >>>>4. Allow abstraction of the implementation details (what) so national >>>>planners can implement various operational concepts (documented in >>>>DoDAF, FEA etc.) with minimal confusion on "how" it is accomplished. >>>> >>>>I have tried to engage NIEM for over one year to explain these concepts >>>>without success. There is finally understanding between the various >>>>standards organization on how important this is to major government >>>>implementations. On the other hand, major information providers are >>>>claim our capabilities either don't exist or have never been >>>>demonstrated. Both are not true and in fact the EDXL-DE is being used >>>>in an operational system within the DoD. Unfortunately, it is not >>>>branded as EDXL-DE since we have not issued the EDXL-DE OASIS standard >>>>yet. >>>> >>>>I need as many of the organization implementing EDXL-DE to attempt >>>>sending outputs from your applications to the developing EDXL-DE >>>> routing >>>>capability at NuParadigm in Saint Louis or our capability at Sandia >>>>National Laboratories. Also, a generic ability to wrap CAP messages in >>>>EDXL has been created and we need to discuss the security implications >>>>of doing this from local applications or by the "execution context" for >>>>legacy/warning-only CAP applications. >>>> >>>>I need to be able to list all the capabilities of your applications >>>> even >>>>if they use explicated routing (e.g. DMIS COGs) and have no security >>>>capability. The design of our governments emerging national >>>>capabilities is moving at lighting speed and EDXL-DE capabilities needs >>>>to be a substantial portion of it. Attached are two briefings present >>>>this past week on sensor routing. >>>> >>>>David E. Ellis >>>>Information Management Architect >>>>(505) 844-6697 >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: sia-pilot6-bounces@humanml.cim3.net >>>>[<mailto:sia-pilot6-bounces@humanml.cim3.net>mailto:sia-pilot6-bounces@humanml.cim3.net] >>>>On Behalf Of Elysa Jones >>>>Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:23 AM >>>>To: Rex Brooks >>>>Cc: sia-pilot6@humanml.cim3.net >>>>Subject: Re: [sia-pilot6] [emergency] EDXL-DE Committee Draft >>>> >>>>Yes, that is a good point. I too want us to start coming up with these >>>>"managed lists" knowing full well that NIEM wont be providing us >>>>anything >>>>in the near term. I had thought too that we could use the event list, >>>>incident type, etc. that were provided in the original draft hand off >>>> as >>>>a >>>>starting place. Maybe we should put these in examples and put them in >>>>the >>>>cookbook? I too think the Govt agencies will not step up to this for >>>>some >>>>time and I am glad the registry is being developed in the pilot. We do >>>>need another company though that can sign up for the "use" for the >>>>committee specification phase. I seem to be focused most these days on >>>>jumping through the hoops for ratification. Regards, Elysa >>>> >>>>At 10:07 AM 2/25/2006, Rex Brooks wrote: >>>>>Just to clarify, it isn't DMIS or IEM that needs to have a >>>>> keyword/list >>>>in >>>>>place, but they do need to be using some values in those fields that >>>>can >>>>>be recognized and used by all of us, or by others that need and have >>>>>permissions to do so. We didn't address that level of permissions, and >>>>I >>>>>doubt that anyone will start restricting these initial efforts, but it >>>>IS >>>>>another place where security measures can be imposed if appropriate, >>>>and >>>>>since our pilot is building a registry where these pointers or the >>>>actual >>>>>resources can reside, I wanted to mention it. While I want to be fair >>>>to >>>>>gov agencies, I suspect they will have a more difficult time getting >>>>the >>>>>funding resources, considering the Congress' recent actions with >>>>> regard >>>>to >>>>>"any" already approved E-Gov program movement of monies preparatory to >>>>>actual spending, the chances are good that what the organizations in >>>>this >>>>>TC actually produce will be the default system for quite some time to >>>>>come, so I want to suggest to everyone that they bear that in mind and >>>>>approach work going forward in the next six months or so as if this >>>>will >>>>>be all the system there will be for the next year. Once what we build >>>>>shows that it works, then I suspect there will quickly be a wealth of >>>>>resources available. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Rex >>>>> >>>>>At 4:12 AM -0600 2/25/06, Elysa Jones wrote: >>>>>>Hey Rex, Welcome back. I hope your trip went well. As for the 3 >>>>"users" >>>>>>of the EDXL-DE, I think Sandia, IEM and DMIS volunteered to make the >>>>>>statement about "use." We wont be able to use Sandia though since >>>>Dave >>>>>>has an individual membership. I'll put a note out to the list >>>>>> shortly >>>>to >>>>>>ask who will be our third and if there is any keywords they must have >>>>in >>>>>>place. Elysa >>>>>> >>>>>>At 10:15 PM 2/24/2006, Rex Brooks wrote: >>>>>>>Yes, this is all true, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>However, we still need 3 member organizations to vouch that they >>>>"use" >>>>>>>it as part of the move to an OASIS-wide vote, so we need to be >>>>implmenting it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>Rex >>>>>>> >>>>>>>P.S. This means that we need to get an EventType Keyword/List and >>>>>>>Sender/Recipient Keybord/List, etc, published by the appropriate >>>>groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hey Tim, >>>>>>>>Yes, the next TC call is 3/9. Whether we pull it now and make a >>>>change >>>>>>>>or wait until another round we could still not get it to a final >>>>OASIS >>>>>>>>vote until May given the calendar process requirements. The >>>>Committee >>>>>>>>Draft has to be to OASIS for 5 business days before going to 15 day >>>>>>>>review and must be back from 15 day review, comments addressed, >>>>voted >>>>>>>>Committee Specification and back to OASIS by the 15th of the month >>>>>>>>prior to the ratification vote. We are on a tight schedule for a >>>>vote >>>>>>>>the last 2 weeks of April even if we receive no substantive >>>>comments. >>>>>>>>Thanks for your input, >>>>>>>>Elysa >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>At 12:31 PM 2/22/2006, Tim Grapes wrote: >>>>>>>>>All, >>>>>>>>>Do I correctly recall that our next TC meeting won't be conducted >>>>until >>>>>>>>>March 9? If so, I recommend we lay out our cards now in case >>>>anyone feels >>>>>>>>>the option to pull back and re-publish is warranted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>My input is that this is simply a typo that can be corrected after >>>>this >>>>>>>>>15-day review. However, if others feel the error truly is >>>>substantive, I >>>>>>>>>feel we should pull it back, make the correction, and republish >>>>ASAP >>>>>>>>>rather >>>>>>>>>than incurring an additional 15-day public comment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Tim Grapes >>>>>>>>>Evolution Technologies, Inc. >>>>>>>>>Disaster Management egov Initiative >>>>>>>>>Science and Technology Directorate/OIC >>>>>>>>>Department of Homeland Security >>>>>>>>>Office: (703) 654-6075 >>>>>>>>>Mobile: (703) 304-4829 >>>>>>>>>tgrapes@evotecinc.com >>>>>>>>>tim.grapes@associates.dhs.gov >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>From: Elysa Jones >>>>>>>>>[<mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com>mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com] >>>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:06 PM >>>>>>>>>To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>>>>>>Subject: [emergency] EDXL-DE Committee Draft >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>TC Members, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>As discussed on our call yesterday, there are a couple of issues >>>>with the >>>>>>>>>EDXL-DE that have been brought to light from within the TC. We >>>>>>>>> are >>>>not >>>>>>>>>able to make any changes to the posted documents until after the >>>>>>>>> 15 >>>>day >>>>>>>>>review. That review is schedule to end March 4. The only >>>>>>>>> comments >>>>so far >>>>>>>>>have come from within the TC although I fully expect some comments >>>>as the >>>>>>>>>end draws near. The most significant comment is the problem with >>>>the >>>>>>>>>schema not matching the DOM. The DOM is correct and the place >>>>>>>>> most >>>>folks >>>>>>>>>look for understanding of what is presented. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I have discussed our situation with Mary McRae, our OASIS staff >>>>contact to >>>>>>>>>determine our most efficient method to proceed. She said that if >>>>in the >>>>>>>>>mind of the TC, the schema would be considered non-normative, it >>>>could be >>>>>>>>>changed as any other typo or correction that is non-substantive >>>>after the >>>>>>>>>15-day review is complete. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If we do feel that the correction of the schema is substantive, >>>>another >>>>>>>>>15-day comment period would be required. In that case, we could >>>>pull the >>>>>>>>>current 15-day review, make the change and re-publish. Or we >>>>>>>>> could >>>>wait >>>>>>>>>until this period is over, make our corrections and re-post for >>>>another >>>>>>>>>15-day review. In either case, the document has to go to OASIS by >>>>the >>>>>>>>>15th >>>>>>>>>of the month prior to the month of the vote. With a successful >>>>15-day >>>>>>>>>review in this round, we will be able to submit to OASIS by the >>>>15th of >>>>>>>>>March and thus an OASIS wide vote the last 2 weeks of April. A >>>>second >>>>>>>>>15-day review no matter how it happens will postpone the OASIS >>>>>>>>> wide >>>>vote >>>>>>>>>until the last 2 weeks of May. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That is where we stand now and there is no real need for a >>>>>>>>> decision >>>>at >>>>>>>>>this >>>>>>>>>point. Please consider whether you feel the incorrect schema is >>>>>>>>>substantive or not and let me know the will of the TC as to how we >>>>>>>>>proceed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>>>Elysa Jones >>>>>>>>>Chair, OASIS EM-TC >>>>>>>>>Engineering PRogram Manager >>>>>>>>>Warning Systems, Inc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>-- >>>>>>>>>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>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.. >>>>php >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>>>>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>>>>>>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/266 - Release Date: >>>>2/21/2006 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>>>>>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>>>>>>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/266 - Release Date: >>>>2/21/2006 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>- >>>>>>>>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.p>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.p >>>>hp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>Rex Brooks >>>>>>>President, CEO >>>>>>>Starbourne Communications Design >>>>>>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>>>>>>Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>>>>>Tel: 510-849-2309 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Rex Brooks >>>>>President, CEO >>>>>Starbourne Communications Design >>>>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>>>>Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>>>Tel: 510-849-2309 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>Message Archives: >>>><http://humanml.cim3.net/forum/sia-pilot6/>http://humanml.cim3.net/forum/sia-pilot6/ >>>>To Post: >>>><mailto:sia-pilot6@humanml.cim3.net>mailto:sia-pilot6@humanml.cim3.net >>>>Shared Files: >>>><http://humanml.cim3.net/file/work/project/sia-pilot6/>http://humanml.cim3.net/file/work/project/sia-pilot6/ >>>>CWE Portal: <http://humanml.cim3.net/>http://humanml.cim3.net/ >>>>Community Wiki: >>>> <http://humanml.cim3.net/wiki/>http://humanml.cim3.net/wiki/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > 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>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups..php >>>> >>>> >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>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>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups..php >>>> >>>> >>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>Message Archives: http://humanml.cim3.net/forum/sia-pilot6/ >>>>To Post: mailto:sia-pilot6@humanml.cim3.net >>>>Shared Files: http://humanml.cim3.net/file/work/project/sia-pilot6/ >>>>CWE Portal: http://humanml.cim3.net/ >>>>Community Wiki: http://humanml.cim3.net/wiki/ >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Rex Brooks >>>President, CEO >>>Starbourne Communications Design >>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>>Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>Tel: 510-849-2309 >>> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>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 >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>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 > > > -- > Rex Brooks > President, CEO > Starbourne Communications Design > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison > Berkeley, CA 94702 > Tel: 510-849-2309 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]