[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: DE SitRep requirement / request
All, This was discussed at length on the SitRep call just now. Though this was brought up during the face to face, the consensus is to withdraw the issue for several reasons, and leave distrType were it currently is in DE 1.0 for DE 2.0. Generally the DE should represent a package, all of which has a state and a status. Adding differentiation at the content object level adds an order of magnitude of complexity, and also muddies the waters regarding application for routing vs. content. SitReps contains everything it needs as a “payload”. Therefore a user of SitReps will always apply a single distributionType across multiple SitReps/Report Types. Otherwise, another DE & SitRep package/message is required. Thanks, Tim Grapes Evotec 703-304-4829 From: McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] Tim- I’ll chime in here. I think we need to keep distribution type in the header section… Here’s why: Conflicting distribution types can lead to delivery problems and all though it’s just an opinion, I think distribution type is focused more on delivery versus just content metadata. The way that I look at is that related items should get packed in a single DE. If you have a NEW report and an UPDATE report they aren’t related per se and should go in separate DE’s. I think the way we should address as you mentioned by saying you should send separate DE’s. From: Timothy Grapes [mailto:tgrapes@evotecinc.com] Hi Jeff, Your update today reminded my about an issue we ran into for SitReps. I thought one of our members had submitted this into your process a while back, but apparently not. Given how late we are in the process, I would request you add this to your issues list and evaluate both the urgency and ease. If valid and easy perhaps it can be accommodated. Otherwise it should live on a list for another iteration. “The EDXL-DE can only allow one distribution type, which must be applied consistently across all content objects if multiple content objects exist. With SitReps and the high interest it is generating from state and local regions, request that the distribution type element be moved to the content object level. SitReps is constructed using 5 basic report types all hinged together by a common root (e.g. “Field Observation”, “casualty and illness summary” and “Response Resources…). However, one and only one report type may be applied within any given SitRep root (due to valid business rules that have been agreed-upon). The DE provides the capability and meets our requirement for “multiple SitReps in a single ‘message’”, and is also the solution for sending of multiple SitRep report types within one “send”. For example, sending of a “Field Observation” report type with a “casualty and illness summary” report type requires 2 DE content objects. However, use cases exist where one content object would require one distribution type selection such as “update’, while the other would require a different distribution type such as “report”.” The work around to not doing this in the DE 2.0, is that a user must send one and only one SitRep Report type per each DE (one content object), unless all of the content objects / SitRep report types sent can ALL apply the same distribution type such as “update”. Thanks for your consideration Jeff et al, Tim Grapes Evotec 703-304-4829 From: jeff.waters@navy.mil [mailto:jeff.waters@navy.mil] The uploaded zip file contains a proposed EDXL DE 2.0 Draft Schema No virus found in this message. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]