[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency-if] Infrastructure Meeting Today.
All I agree with Don. I have an understanding with the
technical UCORE architect about the use of the different standards UCORE versus
the EDXL-DE. That said. The SAIC team which creating UICDS decided
to strip the DE header from messages like OASIS EDXL-RM and use UCORE for data
subscriptions. This works if you neglect all the issues considered in
developing the original DE 1.0. If we want to use only use certain
distribution topologies, UCORE is a US government standard for expressing this
type of information. The DE however is a International standard and
needs to support other capabilities. Dave From: McGarry, Donald P.
[mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] I think before we dig too deep into the details of that we need
to address this topic: “the
DE is often thought of as Metadata for
contents in a data storage repository or for display on COP like UCORE.” There is no consensus on this item and we need to formally
define the statement of purpose for the DE before we move into anything else. From: David E. Ellis
[mailto:dellis@sandia.gov] All; I would like to use
today’s meeting to prepare for the Face-to-Face next week. I have attached a word document for
consideration about the structure
and use of EDXL-DE element with the Routing infrastructure. This is really important because
even after literally years of discussion, the DE is often thought of as
Metadata for contents
in a data storage repository or for display on COP like UCORE.
I would like to use the
attached to explain. The first thing which
became obvious was this needed to have significant flexibility. There
were needs for: 1.
Unique message identity 2.
Distribution infrastructure 3.
Delivery Status 4.
Policy based adjudication
between Social Structures 5.
Capability to hand off to
other distribution systems and preserve Policy based routing. 6.
Subscription for Messages
based on target Area. 7.
Ability to deliver Multiple
Content Objects. 8.
Ability to deliver both XML
and Non-XML content. 9.
Ability to describe Content
Objects to determine
specific application
consumption needs 10.
Ability to extract key element needed for
deliver decision
from encrypted content. 11.
Ability to provide granular
Willingness information at
multiple levels. (content, content object and entire message) I would also like to
discuss the draft Hans has provided Also. It can give us some topics to
consider. Jeff, I have a Lab
inspection which will
run right up to the start of the call. Please take attendance and have
the subcommittee
discuss your minutes. Please do not submit material which is not covered by the EM committee IPR
rules. <<...>> David E. Ellis (505) 844-6697 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]