RE: [emergency] Considerations on conformance for the HAVE standard

["Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@oss.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 17:16
> To: Alessandro Triglia; 'Elysa Jones'; 
> emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Dwarkanath, Sukumar; 
> 'Michelle Raymond'
> Subject: Re: [emergency] Considerations on conformance for 
> the HAVE standard
> 
> Thanks Alessandro,
> 
> This satisfies my concerns because a "producer" can apply to 
> a hospital, an implementation, e.g. a software tool built to 
> produce conforming EDXL-HAVE documents or a service 
> contracted to produce conforming EDXL-HAVE documents. I can 
> live with the term "message," 
> though it borders on being more vague and more prone to 
> different interpretations than I would like, but I can see 
> where the ambiguity might actually be useful. I usually 
> prefer to reserve the term message for a documents specific 
> to a messaging protocol like SOAP 


I agree.  The current draft uses the term "(HAVE) message".  Perhaps "HAVE
document" or "HAVE report" or "report" would be better than "message".

Alessandro


> but all of these usages are 
> okay with me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rex
>