[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] Fw: [emergency] Broadcast, TV, PPW, etc.
Well put! I think the items you have outlined here should start the ball rolling in terms of us looking deeper into broadcast/media/TV, but at the same time not delay our current drive to get CAP out the door. Allen On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 14:38, CONSULTRAC wrote: > I have been reading these threads with great interest and believe that, > from an infrastructure perspective, some simplicity of thought may be > useful: To whit the following questions: > > 1. Who are we trying to deliver CAP 1.0 messages to? Answering this > question will orient us to the various necessary enabling mechanisms and > infrastructures. > 2. What are we trying to deliver? Necessary composition and format, already > generally defined within CAP 1.0, but left open to further refinement as > reflected by the current dialogue. > 3. Why are we delivering these messages? Lets formally define the use > case(s) for CAP 1.0. This will re-orient us to various infrastructures, > payload types and requirements. > 4. When do we need to deliver CAP 1.0 messages? This goes to the question of > persistant, versus demand-based, infrastructure mechanisms, and/or > capabilities. > 5. Where do we need to deliver CAP 1.0 messages? Knowing "where" messages > are to be delivered focuses our effort on the various available delivery > methods and constraints. > > In general, however, it appears that we are trying to answer questions based > on "thinking" rather than "knowing" what we're talking about. That clearly > puts the cart before the horse and, in my view, is of dubious value in > standards setting where clarity of thought and methodical attention to > detail are most critical. > > I have a meeting with the folks at NDS in the morning. At that time I will > engage them in a dialogue associated with these, and other broader > terresteral broadcast issues. Once that relationship is initiated we will > have an expert source available to us which we should assertively leverage > in the dialogue related to infrastructure, message payload and transport > delivery methods. Additionally, it is my belief that we should engage in a > direct dialogue with the authors of the PPW letter to insure that their > interests are clearly understood in the context of that document, in > addition to identifying other potential "expert" knowledge-partners as > evolve our thinking in the future. > > It might be useful to remember that we are engaged in a marathon not a > sprint. The current CAP spec contains language that specifically leaves the > schema open to further refinement as its requirements change based on our > acquisition of "better" information. It should be apparent, therefore, that > we won't be done any time soon, and must accept iterative development as a > baseline. This means that at various points in time we'll either be on, or > off, the mark depending on what we "know" versus what we "think." In my > view, however, it is most important to settle down and methodically "figure > it out." Otherwise, we're just a mob of "smart guys" with too much time on > our hands. > > Rick > > > > 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-msg/members/leave_workgroup.php. -- R. Allen Wyke Chair, Emergency Management TC emtc@nc.rr.com http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]