[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency-adopt] Re: A few fixes
Thanks Mary, We will be happy to make the changes necessary. Cheers, Rex Mary McRae wrote: > Hi Rex, > > This issue has been under discussion in the OASIS Board Process > Committee since April of 2007; I am hoping that we can come to a final > decision on Wednesday, but am not overly optimistic. Even if the > proposal is approved, the existing template will need to be modified > to incorporate appropriate notices, etc. > > Regards, > > Mary > > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:58 PM, Rex Brooks wrote: > >> Hi Mary, >> >> Actually, the TC assigned the task of reviewing and suggesting >> changes to the Infrastructure Framework SC, but I understand the need >> to conduct these discussions on that list, so I am copying that list >> with this message and we will conduct the rest of our discussions in >> that forum. >> >> Putting this document into the specification format is doable, since >> it is not finished, but if the OASIS Board is going to review this >> policy, I will suggest we wait for the result that review, and my >> personal recommendation will have to be based on that outcome. >> >> Thanks for getting us back on track, Mary. >> >> Cheers, >> Rex >> >> Mary McRae wrote: >>> For some reason this paper isn't being discussed on the TC list; any >>> discussion with regard to the document must happen there. Once >>> again, this template is not to be used for this document; the only >>> approved document template for TC work is the specification template. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Waters, Jeff CIV SPAWAR SSC PAC, 53621 >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, All: >>>> >>>> I like the looks of this format very much. Thanks to Rex and >>>> everyone for making this paper so nice. >>>> >>>> I fixed a few items (see attached document with changes recorded), >>>> but perhaps to an earlier Friday version than Rex's latest, sorry. >>>> I've listed the primary ones below. >>>> >>>> (1) The iso 639 code link was broken, so I revised it. >>>> (2) Figure 1 needed to be moved down two paragraphs and the >>>> reference to it moved accordingly, in order for the current text to >>>> make sense. >>>> (3) The "DE Distribution Tags" subheading was lost, it was >>>> appearing as just regular text, so I fixed that. >>>> (4) (There is still a formatting problem with pages 11/12, which I >>>> didn't fix.) >>>> (5) Some of the http://... links were not links, so I made them links. >>>> (6) This version still has the DE schema in Appendix A, which I >>>> prefer. I agree with Mary that normally and traditionally and from >>>> a data management view, one would just link to the schema; however, >>>> for adoption and educational purposes especially from a printout >>>> that one could read on a train or wherever, it's useful to have it >>>> with the paper. I also was making another point by including it >>>> as Appendix A. The point is that the DE is simple, it's only 3 >>>> pages, and in fact, it's so simple I can include it as an Appendix >>>> right here for the reader's convenience in a printout. I also liked >>>> the idea of handing the paper to someone and having it be complete >>>> and stand-alone. The power of being able to hold something in your >>>> hand is still valuable. When I show the paper to someone, I will >>>> flip to the back and point at things. It's useful to have the >>>> schema there in the printout for these instantaneous educational >>>> and tutorial purposes without having to take the time to go look it >>>> up. So my preference would be to leave it in. My suggestion is >>>> that we have both an official link (that won't change) to the >>>> schema referenced in the paper, but also include the schema in the >>>> Appendix as an unofficial convenience. (When a new version of the >>>> schema comes out, a new version of the paper will also need to come >>>> out, and there will be no confusion which schema the old paper was >>>> referencing because it's right there in the Appendix.) >>>> >>>> --Jeff >>>> 619-208-3018 >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] >>>> Sent: Sat 7/25/2009 9:31 AM >>>> To: Waters, Jeff CIV SPAWAR SSC PAC, 53621 >>>> Cc: Dee Schur; carol.geyer@oasis-open.org; >>>> mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; dellis@sandia.gov >>>> Subject: Re: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Jeff, Hi Dee, Carol, Mary, Dave, >>>> >>>> I deleted the old stylesheet which was a mix of the stylesheet you >>>> have >>>> on your machine, Jeff, and selections from the OASIS Specification >>>> Template which I originally advised, and replaced it with the OASIS >>>> Specification Template and adjusted the styling throughout, which >>>> brought the total number pages down from 18 to 14. I put the two >>>> Figures, the Schema and Example into the "code" format which I think >>>> sets it off better. >>>> >>>> Carol, Dee, Mary, this is not a White Paper per se even though it >>>> addresses some of the things a White Paper does. I am putting it into >>>> the White Paper Template, too, and I will send it to you when I'm >>>> done. >>>> However, we want to get the feedback process started and we need to be >>>> clear that our approach doesn't fall neatly into a White Paper >>>> category. >>>> We also want to get this out as soon as we can, with the caveats I >>>> suggest at the end of this too-long message. >>>> >>>> Background: We are in the midst of defining a set of document and >>>> documentation types plotted against target vendor and governmental >>>> audiences for each specification at beginning, intermediate, and >>>> advanced levels. Further differentiations are being worked for >>>> non-technical managers, technical staff, and decision makers, and >>>> there >>>> will be further refinements. >>>> >>>> In the EM Adoption TC's Collateral and Documents SC, which I'm >>>> chairing, >>>> we are developing a spreadsheet that plots document types against >>>> audience types, so that we can keep track of our thinking and >>>> create the >>>> framework for documenting our progress and providing >>>> accountability. We >>>> want to learn from our experience in a structured way. >>>> >>>> We are coordinating with the EDXL-RIM (Reference Information Model) SC >>>> for its immediate need for a similar Basic or Welcome document, as >>>> well >>>> as the next level up, an intermediate technical audience. >>>> >>>> We think each of these audience groups need to be addressed in >>>> different >>>> ways for different purposes. Needless to say, we are only at the >>>> beginning, and this is the first time we've done this, so we wanted to >>>> get to a point where it makes sense to ask you for your feedback, and >>>> that is what we need from you as soon as you can get to it. >>>> >>>> We actually have enough people working on these projects to make >>>> decent >>>> progress. What I think we need to do is to develop an identifiable >>>> look >>>> and feel for the format and a tone for the writing for each of these >>>> levels and avoid the kitchen-sink syndrome where we try to address all >>>> audiences at all levels simultaneously. Of course, then the task >>>> will be >>>> to get the appropriate documents to the correct audience. >>>> >>>> As I said, I am putting this document into the White Paper format so >>>> that we can compare and think about the distinctions we want to >>>> make. I >>>> really like the White Paper format as a former art director-designer, >>>> but I worry that a technical audience might not know what to do >>>> with it, >>>> e.g. how to interpret it, as in "Is this addressed to me?" >>>> >>>> Dave, Jeff has cast the issue of the lack of complete DE-aware >>>> distribution in the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 6: >>>> "There are a number of current distribution mechanisms available while >>>> fully DE-aware solutions are emerging." Remember, we are trying to >>>> focus >>>> on what can be done now and staying as positive as we can. Making >>>> negative statements like, "Fully DE-aware solutions are not yet >>>> available," will tend to discourage rather than encourage our >>>> audience. >>>> >>>> Further, in the last paragraph, Jeff writes: "Of course, these options >>>> are only the beginning..." and while I don't want to lead our audience >>>> into thinking they can achieve everything in the DE now, we have to >>>> build adoption and demand for that now. >>>> >>>> However, having said that, I think we really need to get a second, >>>> intermediate level document underway soon, perhaps working with >>>> Gary Ham >>>> and DM OPEN. At the same time we should make sure that DM OPEN is >>>> clear >>>> with anyone we channel to them that this whole system is being >>>> overhauled and full implementation efforts should be coordinated with >>>> their timeline. Otherwise, everyone we send their way will come away >>>> with a really bad impression when that system is changed in such a way >>>> that it will not be backward compatible, and that is exactly what >>>> they're doing. >>>> >>>> We have to very careful with this. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Rex >>>> >>>> Waters, Jeff CIV SPAWAR SSC PAC, 53621 wrote: >>>>> Hi, Rex: >>>>> >>>>> Sorry this took me awhile to send to you. I didn't yet join the >>>>> infrastructure subcommittee, so perhaps you could upload these >>>>> documents to the resources folder for me. Also I wanted to give >>>>> you another chance to look at the changes I made to last paragraph >>>>> of Section 6 before uploading. If you don't agree with what I did, >>>>> please change back to wording you used or otherwise as you see fit. >>>>> >>>>> I'm cc'ing Dee, so she'll know that basically (after your review >>>>> and upload), it may be ready to vote this draft out of the >>>>> infrastructure subcommittee. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> --Jeff >>>>> >>>>> P.S. I wanted to revise the last paragraph of Section 6 to ensure >>>>> we include Dave's concern that people realize that routing >>>>> solutions which will take full advantage of the DE have yet to be >>>>> developed. I tried to say this in a positive way. Also I wanted to >>>>> note that additional papers explaining EDXL will be forthcoming, >>>>> but to do so in a positive way without implying that people need >>>>> to wait before proceeding to adopt. I added your wording to the >>>>> excel spreadsheet and also the wording I revised and why. On the >>>>> other hand, if you don't like what I did, you can change back. >>>>> >>>>> Your wording was: >>>>> >>>>> "Please be aware that this is a basic introduction to a >>>>> necessarily technical topic and is aimed at an audience with a >>>>> managerial level understanding of the technical issues involved. >>>>> It is not intended to be a comprehensive technical manual. An >>>>> intermediate technical level paper is planned to which managers >>>>> can refer their technical staff for guidance in getting started >>>>> on implementing EDXL-DE in order to distribute the various >>>>> emergency communications message payloadss for which EDXL-DE is >>>>> intended." >>>>> >>>>> My thoughts and revision: >>>>> >>>>> I may be wrong, but I'm not sure this paragraph is necessary. The >>>>> title and many parts of paper refer to this as a "basic" intro, >>>>> and I think it's clear that it is not a comprehensive technical >>>>> manual. Although basic, I'm not sure I agree that it is directed >>>>> toward managers, since I don't think managers are interested in >>>>> the xml examples. Also I'm afraid this paragraph might suggest to >>>>> readers that they should wait until the next paper comes out >>>>> before proceeding. It is important to note that the routing >>>>> solutions proposed are not complete and don't take full advantage >>>>> of the DE. Also important to note that other explanatory papers >>>>> are in the offing. So suggest revising to rephrase main points in >>>>> a more positive light. Section 6 last paragraph to read: "Of >>>>> course, these options are only the beginning. New routing >>>>> solutions and architectures are needed to take full advantage of >>>>> the DE. Now is a good time to consider joining OASIS so your >>>>> company or organization can assist in these efforts." Also added >>>>> this line to the end of 1st paragraph of Section 7 Conclusion: >>>>> "Additional papers explaining the details of the EDXL standards >>>>> are underway." >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Rex Brooks >>>> President, CEO >>>> Starbourne Communications Design >>>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>>> Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>> Tel: 510-898-0670 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <EDXL-DE-Basics-WD05[1]-JeffFixes.doc> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Rex Brooks >> President, CEO >> Starbourne Communications Design >> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >> Berkeley, CA 94702 >> 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 Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]