Re: [emergency] infrastructure white patper

["R. Allen Wyke" <emtc@nc.rr.com>]

Comments...

1. Reference to NIMS: right now this links to a document on our archive,
but the doc is only a draft snip of a larger document. I would recommend
we either try to point to/obtain and point to the entire doc, or we
clarify the wording in the whitepaper to state that we are "influenced
by the ongoing work around NIMS, such as that defined in the referenced
document" sort of thing.

2. Paragraph starting with "Finally, the ultimate resolution...": minor
editorial comments. I would change "... CAP Notification..." to
"..notification standards, such as the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)
also developed by the EM TC, and/or..."

3. Section on "General validation criteria": this is a comment for the
entire section. How do you measure these? The way it is worded is not
clear on it, and if it is meant more as a set of self-test rules, then I
would change the heading/description to reflect that. If they are in
fact hard core validation criteria, then I think we need to be more
concrete in what it takes to be valid.

4. ´familyˇ of infrastructure platforms: as you point out in the list I
mention in #3 above, and as we all know about the financial capabilities
of our users, we should consider an open source family as well.
Something for the "have nots". My guess is something along the lines of
either Tomcat or JBoss as the app/processing server, and PostgreSQL
and/or mySQL as the database.

5. Some comments on the list of standards listed....

a) UDDI: are you referring to the entire family of UDDI specs at OASIS,
or just one in particular? Need to clarify.

b) OASIS XML Version 1.0: I *think* you mean the W3C XML 1.0 (Second
Edition) Recommendation (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml), correct? Do note
that version 1.1 is currently at a Candidate Recommendation state, so
keep that in mind.

c) DMI-S TIE: I, personally, like the inclusion of this, but my concern
is that it is currently a non-public de facto standard. While one
approach would be to recommend we do not list these kinds of standards
in our efforts, I think a better approach might be to see if Gary, et al
might considering submitting TIE to the TC, so that we can start working
to standardize on it? Gary?

d) You should also consider XML Schema (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1
and http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2) - especially since we are using it
for our standards :)

6. After reading through this again, I think you may want to consider
calling it a "Requirements Document" rather than a whitepaper. A
requirements document that paves a path to a normative document that
standardizes, after you complete the Next Steps items in the doc, on a
recommend EM infrastructure. 

And that is it! I think this looks great. It not only defines and
describes what it is you are doing, but it also outlines next steps.
Great work!

Allen

On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 16:18, Michael Wilson wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
-- 
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC
emtc@nc.rr.com
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency