[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL-Reference Information Model
I am hoping we can review the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM - www.niem.gov)and see if the data dictionary (objects, entities and definitions) could potentially be adopted as part of the RIM...I have a lot more information on this - I'll try to put something together. Thanks, Lee 'We the unwilling, led by the unknowing have been doing the difficult with little for so long that we are now ready to tackle the impossible with nothing.' -- Local Fire communications reserve volunteer motto -----Original Message----- From: Ron Lake [mailto:rlake@galdosinc.com] Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 12:29 PM To: Rex Brooks; Renato Iannella; Karen Robinson Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL-Reference Information Model Hi Renato: IS there somewhere a list of the types of things (objects/entities) to be covered by the Reference Information Model? A classification of these objects/entities? Cheers Ron -----Original Message----- From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] Sent: March 25, 2007 9:21 AM To: Renato Iannella; Karen Robinson Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency] EDXL-Reference Information Model Hi Renato, Karen, I'm writing to get the task of building the EDXL Reference Information Model started (EDXL-RIM). The TC voted last week to make this a priority and to spend a large proportion of the upcoming Face-to=Face meetings at the OASIS Symposium 2007 on establishing Scope and Requirements. I volunteered to work with you to build a EDXL Framework or Skeleton document from which we can work in the meeting to get this effort underway. We are scheduling these discussion for Afternoon in San Diego, California so that, hopefully, you can participate as much as possible. I will also be attending via teleconference, so I expect the pace will necessarily have to accommodate us. While it is not optimal, it is doable. I am attaching the Requirments Specification Template as a place to start. I know my own initial impetus is the same that I consistently warn other groups about. I feel like I know enough about this family of specifications from having been involved with it from the start that I can just jump in and start reeling off requirements, and I will certainly be making initial suggestions. However, I think we should eat our own cooking, so I am going to start with the need to establish clear scope and requirements. I would like to avoid the temptation to start diagramming information classes and relationships between these classes for the time being at least. Although I am attaching my bare-bones start of a Requirements Specification, I am including a first pass at the first text section: ************************** Document Scope and Purpose This document states the Functional Requirements for the overall family of Emergency Data Exchange Language specifications. As such, these requirements should be formulated as the abstract principles which govern the enumerated elements within the individual specifications. For Instance, the Emergency Data Exchange Language Distribution Element 1.0 Specification (EDXL-DE.Spec_v1.0) specifies <targetArea> for geospatial or political area with specific information regarding the originator's intent with regard to the routing of an EDXL message. It used a naming convention with an initial lower camel case letter that has since been replaced a convention that uses an initial upper camel case letter. This document should explicitly state the broad naming and design rules that have been adopted. Moreover, the EDXL-RIM SHOULD define the concept of <TargetArea> or <Area> as an abstraction that can be used for the EDXL-DE or the EDXL-Resource Messaging (EDXL-RM) specifications, or any future EDXL specifications. Such a definition SHOULD be sufficently broad and abstract to allow the basic concept to be used consistently across the spectrum of EDXL specifications. As such, this requirements specification SHOULD NOT include as a requirement the most concrete level of information, such as the originator's intent or specifically that both geospatial and political MUST be included because that would not be true for the element <TargetArea> in EDXL-RM that does not include political information nor an area defined by intent. ************************** I don't want to go any further than this right now. I would like to set up a time for a teleconference with you if I can so we can add just enough to the Requirements document to use as a Framework to channel discussion in the Face to Face meeting. We need to have the TC's input. Hopefully we can decide which SC should carry this work forward. While the Messages and Notification SC has handled the EDXL family so far, I am fairly sure we will see a specific sponsored recommendation coming from the Infrastructure TC which will fall within EDXL as well, so it is a decision that needs to be taken carefully. However, since we have championed this concept for a while, we should help get it launched in the best way we can. Regards, Rex -- 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]