[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency-msg] RM elements - Ross/Jon Skeels
Actually the role defined and required by
the practitioners refers to Values required by NIMS / ICS - e.g.
"Sender" (who sent the message), "Requester" (authorization
for the message / request), "SME" (answer questions or provide
details), "Approver", or "RespondingOrg" (who responded to
the message). I’m catching up with the string – you guys are doing great
work with this collaboration. Thanks, Tim From: Aymond, Patti
[mailto:Patti.Aymond@iem.com] The "Role" element currently in
ContactInfo is the incident role (incident commander, first responder, ,etc.)
rather than the role in this procurement (manufacturer, distributor, consumer,
etc.). Patti From: Renato
Iannella [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au] On 29 Aug 2006, at 00:51, Aymond, Patti wrote:
I'm comfortable with ContactInfo
structure as we have it now as long as we add an element that indicates what
role the contact has in the resource procurement process. We currently have a role element under ContactInfo. BTW: I've been looking at the OASIS CIQ spec - I think we can easily
reuse this for all the elements to describe people/orgs/addresses.
I'm more interested in grouping elements together based on
what role provides them. I think having resource producer elements grouped together,
resource distributor elements grouped together, resource owner elements grouped
together... etc. would clarify what elements are appropriate for what message
type. For example, elements associated with resource owner would never be used
for a "Request Resource" message. Agree. Cheers...
Renato Iannella National ICT
IEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR NOTICE:
-- -- |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]