David,
Actually this could be headed in the direction of a true
interoperability issue. It appears that you do not see the value of keeping
HAVE and other EDXL standards (and perhaps the many other standards out there) as
separate, approved external standards in the NIEM world. This is
absolutely essential – attempting to force all of EDXL and other standards into
NIEM will only cause difficulty for BOTH sets of efforts. There are many
examples and arguments that may be cited.
Using adapters for NIEM to connect to the approved standard plus
providing NIEM access to an emergency management data dictionary makes sense
and adds value, but attempting to “integrate” EDXL into NIEM will get in the
way of real usability in the long run.
Thanks,
Tim Grapes
Evotec
"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt"
- Henry J. Kaiser
From: David RR Webber
(XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 5:18 PM
To: Timothy Grapes
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Lee Tincher'
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?
Good news however is that I received a response from Donna Roy on
the LinkedIn NIEm focus group - saying that 2.1 should address gaps in domains
- and that beta will be available for review.
So I'm feeling more relaxed about this - and look forward to
reviewing when available. Obviously I'll let our team here know as soon
as I hear anything in that regard.
-------- Original Message
--------
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?
From: "Timothy Grapes" <tgrapes@evotecinc.com>
Date: Mon, July 13, 2009 7:23 am
To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info>, "'Lee Tincher'"
<ltincher@evotecinc.com>
Cc: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
This is a much more complicated issue than can be discussed
via email. The issue has been worked literally for years, and now again another
effort to work with NIEM without them enforcing rules that do not work for this
domain and without breaking EDXL standards. We need to let the governance
and this “pilot” that is being put forth to play out. That governance is
through a partnership between OIC and FEMA with the knowledge and cooperation
of OASIS and others that have tracked this issue for so long. It may now
get solved in 2.1 (or at least a path forward for governance and cooperation),
but we’ll see.
"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt"
From: David
RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 8:44 PM
To: Lee Tincher
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE
and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?
I'm looking for one piece of XML - no xslt band-aiding and most
certainly NOT one standard for use - and another for publication in the IEPD.
The schema et al in the IEPD should be identical to what is being used in
actual production.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?
From: "Lee Tincher" <ltincher@evotecinc.com>
Date: Sun, July 12, 2009 8:38 pm
To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Uhmmm – isn’t that exactly what I just said we are doing?
"I was wondering why that Frisbee was getting bigger - then
it hit me."
From: David
RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:12 PM
To: Lee Tincher
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE
and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?
IMHO - that makes zero sense! Band-aiding like that is
nasty...
Obviously best outcome is to put the HAVE pieces in NIEM 2.1
Failing that - having an extended dictionary that includes the new
HAVE pieces - so we can generate two wantlists.xml automatically. One
that works with the SSGT - and one that works locally - and will include the
missing pieces as extensions.xsd into the subset schema.
What we need poste haste though is the exact list of missing
parts. I have the cross-reference dictionary between EDXL HAVE and
current NIEM 2.0 - that should work as pick list of things that need to be
added.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL HAVE and NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?
From: "Lee Tincher" <ltincher@evotecinc.com>
Date: Sun, July 12, 2009 10:28 am
To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info>,
<emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
They are not – we have added in HAVE entities to the em domain and
we also created an “adapter” to point to the actual OASIS standard. This
si being done so we can create a mirror IEPD of HAVE that has a one-to-one
match…the idea is to create an XSLT that translates between the HAVE IEPD and
the “real” standard that can be carried in the digest of a SOAP message….
"I was wondering why that Frisbee was getting bigger - then
it hit me."
From: David
RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:46 AM
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] EDXL HAVE and
NIEM 2.1 dictionary alignment?
Importance: High
I've finally managed to crack
the wantlist.xml processing against the online GTRI SSGT and NIEM 2.0
dictionary working for the HospitalStatus schema and using CAM compare to
dictionary tool to reverse engineer the wantlist from the schema.
http://niem.gtri.gatech.edu/niemtools/ssgt/SSGT-Generate.iepd#
I've attached the sample
wantlist.xml if you want to try this yourselves (click on the
"Options" - far top right - and then you will see a select file
and load buttons).
Now - when reviewing this - you
will notice a raft of gml elements are missing (only a short list are there) -
PLUS - there are many missing em: items.
So the key questions is - are
these all missing ones now added into the new NIEM 2.1 dictionary release that
is scheduled for September?
If not someone needs to contact
GTRI very quickly this week - to make sure these will be added.
And if we could get a beta test
of the Access database of the new NIEM 2.1 then would be best so we can
crosscheck it all.
Thanks, DW
|