OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency-msg message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [emergency-msg] Draft schemas from the meeting


It's probably not surprising that as the person 
making all those ERMs, I happen to disagree, 
though only with the notion of coupling 
ContactInformation with Location specifically. 
But I am not going to waste any time on insisting 
on it. I just think that reusable components are 
better left separated where they can be applied 
as needed. I don't think the logic to connect 
ContactInformation to Location is completely 
compelling. The part that gets tedious is that 
the individual ERMs are not simply copy-overs. I 
WOULD like to make sure that we think that we 
will keep it the way we change it, so I request 
everyone actually give it some thought.

In terms of making it easier to change the ERMs, 
I can just create an association connector, with 
the correct cardinality value from the 
ContactInformation Class within the 
ContactInformation Package to the applicable 
class, e.g. the Location class or the 
ScheduleInformation class.

Cheers,
Rex

At 10:47 AM +1100 12/14/06, Karen Robinson wrote:
>
>Hi Gary,
>
>I think the new schema looks good.  The 
>definition of "LocationType" is now pretty much 
>back to how it was before, except for some 
>differences with the min/maxOccurs.
>
>We probably still need to discuss it at the 
>teleconference, however - if everybody agrees 
>that CIQInformation needs to go back to being 
>part of Location, the rest of the document 
>(including all of the ERMs) will need to be 
>updated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Karen.
>
>
>From: Ham, Gary A [mailto:hamg@BATTELLE.ORG]
>Sent: Thursday, 14 December 2006 6:07 AM
>To: Karen Robinson
>Cc: emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [emergency-msg] Draft schemas from the meeting
>
>Karen,
>
>NEVER intended the comment outs to be permanent. 
>Took them out so that I did not have to load all 
>the pieces to my Validator while building 
>examples.  The comment outs were intended to 
>stay or at least be fully discussed. Otherwise 
>they would have been deleted.   We will 
>certainly need them to determine the specific 
>CIQ pieces that we want to bring in.
>
>On the Location question, I was simply trying to 
>encapsulate CIQ from GML.  But...... I certainly 
>see your logic.  To the logical mind, a location 
>has an address.  It simply makes sense, rather 
>than making them co-equals as the current lay 
>out does. It is true, however, that not all 
>Locations have an Address, but that is not a 
>problem if CIQInformation is optional.   The 
>difficulty arises when an address is 
>not necessarily associated with a reliable 
>location (e-mail address, Post office 
>Box, Person Name, and radio frequency are three 
>examples). If I am not wrong, many of these 
>non-location "addresses" are handled 
>effectively CIQ.  Many of these are appropriate 
>entries in ContactInformation as CIQInformation 
>that is not associated with a physical Location. 
>So, I think that it is very necessary for us to 
>build a Contactinformation that addresses this 
>fact.
>
>So, I guess I agree with you in part.  A 
>Location should have an optional Attribute of 
>CIQInformation.  (The updated draft Types Schema 
>makes it so with exactly one added line.)   But 
>ContactInformation should be able to contain 
>CIQInformation separately, without any reference 
>to a Location Element.    Because....... As I 
>read CIQ .... It can certainly reside on its own 
>with no reference to any geographical location. 
>So, I did not move the current CIQInformation 
>Element down underneath Location in the 
>ContactInformationType, because it needs the 
>ability to stand on its own.  Rather I simply 
>put it in both places.  It can then be an 
>element of a Contact without a Location, an 
>element of Contact Containing a non-CIQ 
>Location, an element of a Location that does use 
>CIQ within a Contact, or an Element of a 
>Location that is not associated with a Contact 
>at all.
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>Gary A. Ham
>Senior Research Scientist
>Battelle Memorial Institute
>540-288-5611 (office)
>703-869-6241 (cell)
>"You would be surprised what you can accomplish 
>when you do not care who gets the credit." - 
>Harry S. Truman
>
>
>
>From: Karen Robinson [mailto:Karen.Robinson@nicta.com.au]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:07 AM
>To: Ham, Gary A
>Cc: emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [emergency-msg] Draft schemas from the meeting
>
>Hi Gary (& others),
>
>The problem I see with treating Location as just 
>a container for GML information is that you lose 
>the ability to capture street addresses within 
>the ScheduleInformation - unless you embed them 
>in the free-text "Description" element, which is 
>not an optimal solution.  For example, we can no 
>longer capture this sort of thing (from the 
>example in Section 3.3.1.4):
>
>         <ScheduleInformation scheduleType="RequestedArrival">
>             <DateTime>2006-03-24T09:00:00+10:00</DateTime>
>             <Location>
>                 <Description>Innisfail Animal Refuge</Description>
>                 <CIQInformation>
>                     <xnal:Address>
>                         <xnal:Country>
>                             <xnal:Name>Australia</xnal:Name>
>                         </xnal:Country>
>                         <xnal:AdministrativeArea>
>                             <xnal:Name>QLD</xnal:Name>
>                         </xnal:AdministrativeArea>
>                         <xnal:Locality>
>                             <xnal:Name>Innisfail</xnal:Name>
>                         </xnal:Locality>
>                         <xnal:Thoroughfare>
>                             <xnal:NameElement>Downing St</xnal:NameElement>
>                             <xnal:Number>27</xnal:Number>
>                         </xnal:Thoroughfare>
>                         <xnal:PostCode>
>                             <xnal:Identifier>4860</xnal:Identifier>
>                         </xnal:PostCode>
>                     </xnal:Address>
>                 </CIQInformation>
>             </Location>
>         </ScheduleInformation>
>
>I suppose we could connect the 
>ScheduleInformation and CIQInformation objects 
>directly in the ERM (without hanging 
>CIQInformation off Location, as it was 
>previously) - but to my mind, grouping CIQ 
>addresses under Location makes sense, because an 
>address is one valid way of specifying a 
>Location (a GML Point is another, etc).
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, the ContactInformation 
>captured at the ResourceMessage level captures 
>only address information for the resource 
>requester, owner, etc. - it doesn't specify 
>addresses for sending resources.
>
>By the way (a question for the whole group), is 
>it intentional that ContactInformation is now 
>sitting up in the corner of the ERM by itself, 
>not connected to anything?  It is a bit 
>confusing, as it doesn't show where it fits into 
>the message structure.  I noticed that the 
>sub-elements of ContactInformation have also 
>been removed from all of the message tables.
>
>The schema layout looks fine to me - however, I 
>would uncomment quite a few of the comments. J 
>Having worked through a lot of message examples, 
>I tend to think that most of the things that 
>have been removed are still needed.
>
>Thanks,
>Karen.
>
>
>From: Ham, Gary A [mailto:hamg@BATTELLE.ORG]
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 December 2006 12:46 AM
>To: Karen Robinson
>Cc: emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [emergency-msg] Draft schemas from the meeting
>
>Karen,
>
>I agree with you on the need for the committee 
>to address CIQ content item specifically. And 
>yes, I was just looking for a "straw man" CIQ 
>profile.   But, "Party" and "Address" fill that 
>need for now. Are there others that the 
>committee wants? Should be a primary question 
>for Thursday.
>
>The difference between CIQInformation and 
>Location was that Location is (at least in my 
>mind) the container for the GML structure and 
>CIQ is the structure for addressing, party 
>naming, etc. following the OASIS spec for such 
>data.  So, in my mind, CIQ was not part of 
>Location, nor was Location part of 
>CIQInformation.  Rather both were potential 
>parts of ContactInformationType along with 
>Radio, and a generic Description.  The objective 
>was to put a place in for both 
>standards, without having to directly mix them. 
>It was just my personal interpretation.  I am 
>not hard over on it, though. If there is reason 
>to do differently, I think the committee would 
>be open to it. I certainly am.
>
>Can I take it from your comments that the rest 
>of the schema layout is OK with you?   After the 
>"types" schema concept was your idea, and a good 
>one.  Keep the input rolling!!!!
>
>Thanks,
>
>R/s
>
>Gary A. Ham
>Senior Research Scientist
>Battelle Memorial Institute
>540-288-5611 (office)
>703-869-6241 (cell)
>"You would be surprised what you can accomplish 
>when you do not care who gets the credit." - 
>Harry S. Truman
>
>
>
>From: Karen Robinson [mailto:Karen.Robinson@nicta.com.au]
>Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:13 PM
>To: Ham, Gary A
>Subject: RE: [emergency-msg] Draft schemas from the meeting
>
>Hi Gary,
>
>Thanks for sending the schemas.  I'm a bit 
>confused about what you want me to do with the 
>CIQ information.  It looks like the 
>"CIQInformationType" type I added is still 
>there, just commented out.  Could we just 
>uncomment it for now and use it "as is" until we 
>develop a CIQ profile consisting of an 
>appropriately restricted subset of CIQ?  Or are 
>you asking me to actually develop the CIQ 
>profile?  Unfortunately, I doubt that I could 
>work out all of the potential parts of CIQ we 
>might need by myself - I think this is probably 
>an activity for the group as a whole to tackle. 
>So far, I have identified "Party" and "Address" 
>as potentially useful parts of CIQ, but there 
>must be other elements as well.
>
>One thing that confuses me about the latest ERM 
>and schema is why CIQInformation has been taken 
>out of LocationType.  Previously, CIQ Addresses 
>were the main way used to specify location (they 
>are used in most if not all of the message 
>examples).  Was there some discussion at the 
>face-to-face surrounding this?
>
>Regards,
>Karen.
>
>
>From: Ham, Gary A [mailto:hamg@BATTELLE.ORG]
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 December 2006 1:45 AM
>To: emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [emergency-msg] Draft schemas from the meeting
>
>Folks,
>
>The attached schema files represent a completed 
>(with clearly defined placeholders for CIQ and 
>Location) reference schema for RM. Based on 
>Karen Robinson's input, I broke it into two 
>files. The Types schema represents all data 
>structures that are unchanged across the 
>spectrum of messages. They may be used or not 
>use by a message, but they are unchanged where 
>they are used.  The only exception is 
>the likely further restriction of enumerated 
>types.  The reference schema is the base schema 
>for all RM messages.  It forms the least 
>restrictive schema from which each of the 
>messages will be derived.  I am working on each 
>of the messages, but they will be a lot simpler 
>because of Karen's input.
>
>For Karen, If you would like to specifically add 
>the CIQ piece to the Types Schema (and tidy as 
>necessary) I would appreciate it.
>
>For all, If your mail server strips off the 
>attached files, just respond to my email 
><mailto:hamg@battelle.org>hamg@battelle.org and 
>I will send access to a file download capability.
>
>Respectfully,
>Gary A. Ham
>Senior Research Scientist
>Battelle Memorial Institute
>540-288-5611 (office)
>703-869-6241 (cell)
>"You would be surprised what you can accomplish 
>when you do not care who gets the credit." - 
>Harry S. Truman
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
>privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
>use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
>recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
>messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
>data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
>amendment. This notice should not be removed.
>


--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]