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: EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement


Title: RE: EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement
Hi Elysa, Michelle,Sukumar,

Alessandro posted a couple of notes on this, with some urls for WS-I* documents that deal with this.

Given what Mary said, I think we would be well advised to think through this issue in terms of:

1-identifying conformance targets, possibly IMO including hospitals themselves as well as implementations and tools;
2-using the detailed approach Michelle suggested in Tuesday's meeting which focuses in on specific "combinations" of MUST conformance statements with some optional SHOULD statements where to be completely conformant for specific purposes, such as infectious disease, mass casualties or emergency relief specific sets of MUST abd SHOULD statements must be implemented as specified.

I've given it quite a bit of thought and I think Mary is correct. If we don't do this now, we may end up needing to do it later followed by another full 60-Day Review, so it is better to dig into this now and get ti right.

For the EM-Msg SC: We face the same argument for EDXL-RM with different conformance targets and details. I will bring it up in today's meeting, but I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. I just want people to understand that the issue is there, and we need to add it to the face-to-face agenda.

Cheers,
Rex

At 8:29 PM -0500 9/6/07, Elysa Jones wrote:
We discussed it quite a bit.  Liked the idea of something not too detailed and thought we would run it by Mary.  That didn't go well per her note below and as far as I know there has been little discussion since. Elysa

At 08:27 PM 9/6/2007, Dwarkanath, Sukumar wrote:
Was any decision made re this, or did you get a chance to discuss this?
 
Thanks
 
Sukumar
 
 

From: Mary McRae [ mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:01 PM
To: 'Elysa Jones'
Cc: Dwarkanath, Sukumar; 'Rex Brooks'; 'Michelle Raymond'
Subject: RE: EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement
 
While it probably meets the “letter of the law”, I’m not quite sure what “supports” really means and how someone would be able to determine whether or not their application truly conforms. I remember an earlier concern around CAP – someone stating that they implemented/were using CAP but they didn’t allow for one or more of the optional elements. The TC felt strongly that the implementation should not be able to say that it conformed to CAP. You want to make sure that the conformance statement covers exactly what it means to say your application conforms to the EDXL-HAVE specification, including specific references to other specifications and their versions as appropriate. I saw a mention of doing something really simple this time around and then working on it later, but that will then force another public review round. As always, I urge the TC to take the time to “get it right” now.
 
Of course the decision is up to the TC; as long as the conformance section meets the basic requirement I have no reason to hold it back.
 
All the best,
 
Mary 
 
 
From: Elysa Jones [ mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:46 PM
To: Mary McRae
Cc: Dwarkanath, Sukumar; Rex Brooks; Michelle Raymond
Subject: EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement
 
Can you tell us if the following is sufficient for EDXL-HAVE conformance section?  Elysa



 

4.   CONFORMANCE




 
An implementation is a conforming EDXL-HAVE if the implementation meets the conditions in Section 4.1.
 

4.1            CONFORMANCE AS EDXL-HAVE




 

1.         Supports the use of EDXL-DE, or a similar distribution element

2.
        Supports the syntax and semantics in the Data Dictionary (Sec 3.2)

3.
        Supports the defined EDXL-HAVE schema (attached artifact)
 
 
 
 
 
 
This electronic message transmission contains information from SRA International, Inc., which may be confidential, privileged or proprietary. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic information in error, please notify SRA immediately by telephone at 866-584-2143.
 


--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670


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