Re: [emergency-msg] ICS form req's draft

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

If I am suppose to, and I agree based on your intentions, read it as a
MUST, then "equally applicable to, and can be reused in, the ICS
messages" becomes "equally applicable to, and MUST be reused in, the ICS
messages". That is the heart of my concern. That for me to support some
future "EM ICS" standard, I must also support CAP - you are linking them
together.

Am I missing something? If so, maybe if a description of the vision for
the ICS forms would be appropriate. When I think standardized XML
versions of ICS forms, then I think of just an XML representation of
that form - not one that is tied to another standard.

Allen

On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 07:59, Art Botterell wrote: 
> At 10:02 PM -0400 7/14/03, Allen Wyke wrote:
> >I think you are making it a "requirement" (as defined by supporting 
> >MUSTs and SHOULDs) without meaning too.
> 
> No, I definitely meant to.  I'm suggesting that the 
> message-management capabilities supported by the referenced elements 
> in CAP would be equally useful in the IB message... and that it would 
> be more appropriate to reuse existing components than to reinvent the 
> wheel.  If SHOULD and MUST mean essentially the same thing in this 
> context then please feel free to read this proposal as a MUST.
> 
> >Don't get me wrong, I would love for CAP to be part of ICS, but I would
> >caution the approach for v1.0.
> 
> That's not what's proposed.  The proposal is merely that a particular 
> set of elements that also are used in CAP... those that provide for 
> message identification and management... are equally applicable to, 
> and can be reused in, the ICS messages.
> 
> - Art
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-msg-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-msg-help@lists.oasis-open.org

-- 
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC
emtc@nc.rr.com
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency