[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVE Comments (EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded - EDXL-RM issues to address
Rex, I have some more EDXL-RM issues of concern to be added to the list and
addressed. (1) Constraint #5 of the SubCategoryBedType
in Section 3.2.4, Hospital Status (on line 310 on page 24 in my copy) refers to
an "Available" value of <CapacityStatus>.
According to the Constraints of <CapacityStatus>, however, the only
available values are "VacantAvailable" and "NotAvailable";
according to the Comments, "Vacant/Available" is correct.
Furthermore, the schema that I have uses "Vacant/Available" (as do
the examples in the standard). The standard claims that both the Constraints
and the schema are normative (and that the comments are non-normative). (2) Section 3.2.8.3, geo-oasis Elements,
contains a note (on line 444 on pages 61 and 62 in my copy) that says:
Note: See Appendix D for note on OASIS GML profile. Appendix D, however, is the
acknowledgements, and I cannot find anything labeled as "OASIS GML
profile." Thank you, Timothy D. Gilmore | SAIC Senior Test Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEP phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2012 mobile: 606.219.7882 | email: Please consider the environment before printing this email. -----Original Message----- Hi Tim, Were required to keep our lists in the Documents Repository for general public access. The latest list for EDXL-RM is in the Issues Lists for Spec Reviews folder at It is only a very short Word document describing the issues and their resolutions. The only changes which are scheduled to be made for the Errata which will accompany the more extensive Errata for EDXL-HAVE are the broken links in Issue 4. However, it sounds like this should be added, so I am adding it to the agenda for the next Issues into the normal Excel spreadsheet format, so that it looks like all the others. Cheers, Rex At 3:56 PM -0400 5/18/09, Gilmore, Timothy wrote: >Rex, > >Do you have the EDXL-RM issues list completed to share? > >One of our software engineers were concerned about the following: > >- section 3.8.2, RequestInformation Message Element Reference
Model, > pages 56 and 57,
say that a RequestInformation message contains > zero or more
IncidentInformation elements (figure 8 and table > 7); but the third
bullet of section 3.8.3 uses the article "a" > to describe a
possible IncidentInformation element; and section > 4.1.2,
IncidentInformation Element, page 138, says that >
IncidentInformation may be used once and only once > > - section 3.8.2, RequestInformation
Message Element Reference Model, > pages 56 and 57,
say that a RequestInformation message contains > zero or more
Funding elements (figure 8 and table 7); but the > fifth bullet of
section 3.8.3 uses the article "a" to describe a > possible Funding
element; and section 4.1.3, Funding Element, > page 140, says
that Funding may be used once and only once > >Thanks, > >Timothy D. Gilmore | SAIC >Senior Test and Evaluation Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEP >phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2012 >mobile: 606.219.7882 | email: > >Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rex Brooks [mailto: >Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:16 PM >To: Gilmore, Timothy; Rex Brooks; Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL >Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVE Comments >(EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded > >Hi Tim, > >You can download the latest IssuesList
EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.7.xls >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-msg/download.php/ >31713/EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.7.xls > >We're still at Issue 7, after reviewing all previous issues last
week >with the List Sukumar has kept from the beginning. So we'll still >have to finish the review before we can assess how long it will
take >to finish the errata for a Public Review. We finished EDXL-RM and I >will get to it as soon as I can. There is very little to do, just >some cross-reference links in the Conformance Section.
Unfortunately, >the CAP Profiles and CAP v1.2 work is getting more face-time right >now. Hopefully we will be able to make more headway next Tuesday. > >Wish I had more definitive news, but my best guess is that both
will >be done for TC approval to move to errata Public Review before the >end of April. > >Cheers, >Rex > >At 3:20 PM -0400 3/26/09, Gilmore, Timothy wrote: >>All, >> >>Is there a time frame set for when these issues will be
incorporated >>into an errata or 1.1 version of the EDXL-HAVE specification. >> >>How about the EDXL-RM issues list? >> >> >>Timothy D. Gilmore | SAIC >>Test and Evaluation Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEP >>phone: 606.274.2063 | fax 606.274.2012 >>mobile: 606.219.7882 | email: >> >> >>Please consider the environment before printing this email. >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: >>emergency-return-1368-timothy.d.gilmore=saic.com@lists.oasis-open.org >
>[mailto:emergency-return-1368-timothy.d.gilmore=saic.com@lists.oasis-op >e >>n.org] On Behalf Of Rex Brooks >>Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:28 AM >>To: Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL; >>emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVE Comments >>(EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded >> >>You make some good points Sukumar, >> >>Sorry for the length of these emails. You may have missed the
TC >>meeting(s) when I raised the topic of responding to the NIMS SC > >issues. When I get some time to check for it, I will
send along the >>url for the meeting notes, but it was discussed in the TC. >> >>My point with regard to the spreadsheet is that it is not
something >>we have done before. I think that it is just easier to keep
this new >>process clearly distinct from the previous process of tracking >>comments for the Public Reviews if these post-approval issues
are >>separated. >> >>We always have the previous Issues Lists to refer to, but once
the >>post-approval comments are included, it becomes difficult for
anyone >>who is not familiar with the history to understand how the
issues or >>comments relate to the TC process, and that is not evident
simply >>from the date. Let's remember that we keep these records for
public >>transparency as much as for our own reference, and I think this >>practice just makes easier to get confused. As far as that goes,
I've >>done similar things, like using a second worksheet to track
meeting >>attendance and dating responses to use the spreadsheet for the >>purpose of recording meeting notes. As I understand the TC
process, >>we are allowed such freedom in SCs. >> >>I agree, putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is
definitely >>non-trivial, and I thank you for that. In fact, the time and
effort >>of doing that is the reason why I didn't do that myself. I
preferred >>to review the submitted documents from NIMS SC at least once to
get >>an idea of what process is most appropriate and form a
recommendation >>to the TC, while keeping track of our discussions in our
meeting >>notes. >> >>Of course, now that these issues are in speadsheet form, there
is no >>reason not to use it to keep track of our discussions, after we
have >>discussed how best to conduct even this initial review in the
TC. >> >>There's actually an issue in here for the TC to consider beyond
this >>specific instance. Most of our specifications deal with
messaging, >>which is specifically part of the Messages and Notification SC.
I >>have several times now suggested having certain tasks, such as >>developing EDXL-HAVE conducted either at the TC level or, with
a new >>SC such as the CAP Profiles SC. I have previously suggested
that CAP >>Next Gen be undertaken by a new SC. The reason for this has
been to >>avoid confusion and to even-out the workload so that one SC is
not >>overburdened. I doubt we want to become sticklers about this
because >>it is the work that is important, more important than the
process. >>However the process needs to be clear and help accomplish the
work. >> >>We investigated standing up task-specific groups, but, if my
memory >>serves, OASIS does not support that kind of workgroup at the TC >>level. I think we are free to do that at the SC level, but if
we >>don't have enough participation due to the fact that one must
join an >>SC in order to participate in a task group, its a moot point. >> >>So we need to discuss how best to conduct the next batch of >>specifications, revisions, Errata, etc. >> >>Cheers, >>Rex >> >> >> >>At 12:00 AM -0500 3/7/09, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote: >>>Rex, >>> >>>Obviously, its a long email to respond... >>> >>>You are making quite a few assumptions that are not
correct. I did >>>not imply that this should not be done in a group nor that >>>everything should be done in a single vote - obviously,
that's >>>impractical. >>> >>>I am not sure I understand the logic of not compiling all
the >>>comments first - we have done that as a first step for all
the >>>standards and I hope we continue to follow that process. >>> >>>Finally, just putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is
a non >>>trivial issue - my opinion is that it will be easier to
have all > >>comments at one place - clearly, you can track
everything since they >>>will be related and may have been discussed before. You can
easily >>>track issues that were past the approval - the date column
should >>>help you with it. And you can filter the column to see the
open >>>issues. If you want to create a separate spreadsheet,
please do so. >>> >>>I am happy to discuss - I was not aware that you were
discussing it >>>in the SC nor recollect being mentioned in the last TC
meeting. As I > >>mentioned in my email, the spreadsheet would be a
starting point for >>>the discussions. >>> >>>Sukumar >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Rex Brooks < >>>To: Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >>><emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>Sent: Fri Mar 06 17:44:27 2009 >>>Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVE Comments >>>(EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded >>> >>>Hi Sukumar, >>> >>>We in the EM-Msg SC were going through the 28 (37 if you
count the >>>lettered sub issues) issues submitted by the >>>after EDXL-HAVE was approved as an OASIS Standard. >>> >>>We were considering only those and going through them one
by one >>>without putting them into a spreadsheet yet so that we
could make a >>>recommendation to the TC on how to resolve these
post-approval >>>issues, e.g. an Errata or a v1.1. >>> >>>I'm a little confused by including these new issues with
the issues >>>resolved before the approval process. I know we
didn't take this >>>work on as an SC, but we wanted to address them as part of
addressing >>>both RM and HAVE so that the >>>that their concerns with both were being addressed.
Obviously we did >>>not know that you were compiling them into a spreadsheet or
taking >>>personal responsibility to propose resolutions. >>> >>>We should probably take this up in the TC. I would feel a
lot better >>>if this were done by a group rather than just one person.
Also, as >>>diligent and careful as you are, I think there are just too
many to >>>accept them as a group with some kind of single vote on all
at once. >>>I think each resolution needs to be processed through a
group. >>> >>>For instance, the DOM is more than difficult to read, it is
not >>>sufficiently legible and needs to be redone, regardless of
the fact >>>that the schema is normative. To be honest, even if few of
these >>>issues warrants a revision, until a group has gone through
them one >>>by one, I won't have enough confidence to recommend either
an Errata >> >or v1.1. >>> >>>So I think we should discuss how to address these issues in
the next >>>TC meeting. I would appreciate it if we could have only the
new open >>>issues in a separate spreadsheet. >> > >>>Cheers, >>>Rex >>> >>>At 9:59 PM +0000 3/6/09, sukumar_dwarkanath@sra.com wrote: >>>>I have added the comments from NIMS SC and have
reviewed it. As a >>starting >>>>point, I have provided a proposed resolution for each
comment which >we >>can >>>>discuss and finalize. All the comments are editorial in
nature and I >>think >>>>can be fixed with an errata. >>>> >>>> -- Sukumar Dwarkanath >>>> >>>>The document named EDXL HAVE Comments
(EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) >>has >>>>been submitted by Sukumar Dwarkanath to the OASIS
Emergency >Management >>TC >>>>document repository. >>>> >>>>Document Description: >>>>List of comments on EDXL-HAVE >>>> >>>>View Document Details: >>>><http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=31572> >h >>ttp://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=31572 >>>> >>>>Download Document: >>>><http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31572/EDXL_HAVE_Is >s >>uesList_v4.6.xls>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3157 >2 >>/EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls >>>> >>>> >>>>PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for
you, your email >>application >>>>may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may
be able to copy >and >>paste >>>>the entire link address into the address field of your
web browser. >>>> >>>>-OASIS Open Administration >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Rex Brooks >>>President, CEO >>>Starbourne Communications Design >>>GeoAddress: 1361-A > >> >>>Tel: 510-898-0670 >> >> >>-- >>Rex Brooks >>President, CEO >>Starbourne Communications Design >>GeoAddress: 1361-A >> >>Tel: 510-898-0670 >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that >>generates this mail. Follow this link to 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. Follow this link to 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 > >Tel: 510-898-0670 -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Tel: 510-898-0670 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]