For Public Review:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
| Subject: | Survey regarding whether to startup an effort to revise DE / DE 2.0 |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 16 Jul 2018 22:15:25 -0700 |
| From: | Jeff Waters <jeffrywaters@gmail.com> |
| To: | rexb@starbourne.com, Elysa Jones <elysajones@yahoo.com>, Scott M. Robertson <Scott.M.Robertson@kp.org> |
Hi:
 At our last RIM meeting, we discussed whether we should
consider reforming the Infrastructure Framework subcommittee
to attempt to revise once again the DE. The suggestion was
that perhaps too much flexibility (i.e. complexity) was added
in the DE 2.0 inhibiting its adoption. The counter-suggestion
was that there was ultimately a lack of commitment by key
members to using a standardized distribution format/mechanism,
other than ones already existing and commercially popular
(such as the Atom Publishing Protocol). Another point made
was that a "package addressing" solution like the DE enabling
smart routing has limited utility without, and won't be
adopted in any form until, a smart routing infrastructure
exists. A chicken-and-egg problem
 One suggestion was a survey to see if there is a real
interest in developing another version of the DE and if so, if
there was a real commitment to using it. I offered to draft
up a short survey for consideration. Here is a rough draft
below.
 Thanks!
--Jeff
A Survey to Determine Interest in Revising the Distribution
Element
Background
-----------------
The primary purpose of the Distribution Element is to
facilitate the routing
of any properly formatted emergency message to recipients. The DE serves
two primary purposes: (1) the DE allows an organization to wrap important pieces
of emergency information into a single easy-to-distribute XML "package", and
(2) the DE allows an organization to "address" the package in flexible ways
to support intelligent routing, including specifying recipients by role,
by geographic area, or by keywords.
The original draft DE specification was trialed by a number of organizations
and released as an OASIS standard in 2004. (See
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-de/v1.0/EDXL-DE_Spec_v1.0.pdf) The DE
was adopted and used by a number of communities and
applications and, as a result, a few significant enhancements were recommended.
Over the course of a year, the OASIS EMTC met biweekly to revise the
DE, producing the standard committee draft DE 2.0 in 2013. (See
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-de/v2.0/edxl-de-v2.0.pdf)
(Differences in the two specifications, DE and DE 2.0, can be found here:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-de/v2.0/csprd03/edxl-de-v2.0-csprd03-DIFF.pdf)
The DE 2.0 expands the ability to use local
community-defined terms, uses a profile of the Geographic Markup Language (GML),
follows best practices for naming conventions, provides an extension mechanism
for inclusion of supplemental community terms and information,
provides the capability to link content objects, and is reorganized for
increased flexibility and reuse of common types.
For example, the DE 2.0 provides new flexibility to use the descriptive portion of
the message separately from the content itself, providing a standardized
header structure for distribution of emergency information, even when
using other non-DE content distribution mechanisms. (See
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-if/download.php/49303/DE_2.0_Basics_Draft_ver_11b.doc)
Although the DE 2.0 was drafted, the revision never advanced to a
full OASIS standard due to lack of adoption, i.e. usage statements.
Recent renewed interest in the DE has raised the question of whether to
reform the Infrastructure Subcommittee and renew the task to incorporate current
feedback and revise the DE and/or DE 2.0 to finalize a new DE standard.
Your feedback on the following survey will be critical to determine
whether the effort is desired and worthwhile.
(1)Â Does your organization believe there is a need for a Distribution
Element? (Yes/No) Would your organization use the Distribution Element if it were
revised? (Yes/No)
(2) Do you believe either the DE or the DE 2.0 are sufficient "as-is"? (Yes/No)
If so, which do you prefer? (DE or DE 2.0). If not, what do you see
as the current impediments to adoption?
(3) If the DE were revised once again, what would be your 5 top needs that
you would like to see addressed?
(4) If the Infrastructure Subcommittee were reformed, would you or
another representative of your organization participate and help to
revise the DE? (Yes/No)
(5) Do you recommend reforming the Infrastructure Subcommittee to
develop a new version of the DE? (Yes/No)
Please provide any other comments/suggestions below:
Thanks for your feedback.
of any properly formatted emergency message to recipients. The DE serves
two primary purposes: (1) the DE allows an organization to wrap important pieces
of emergency information into a single easy-to-distribute XML "package", and
(2) the DE allows an organization to "address" the package in flexible ways
to support intelligent routing, including specifying recipients by role,
by geographic area, or by keywords.
The original draft DE specification was trialed by a number of organizations
and released as an OASIS standard in 2004. (See
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-de/v1.0/EDXL-DE_Spec_v1.0.pdf) The DE
was adopted and used by a number of communities and
applications and, as a result, a few significant enhancements were recommended.
Over the course of a year, the OASIS EMTC met biweekly to revise the
DE, producing the standard committee draft DE 2.0 in 2013. (See
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-de/v2.0/edxl-de-v2.0.pdf)
(Differences in the two specifications, DE and DE 2.0, can be found here:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-de/v2.0/csprd03/edxl-de-v2.0-csprd03-DIFF.pdf)
The DE 2.0 expands the ability to use local
community-defined terms, uses a profile of the Geographic Markup Language (GML),
follows best practices for naming conventions, provides an extension mechanism
for inclusion of supplemental community terms and information,
provides the capability to link content objects, and is reorganized for
increased flexibility and reuse of common types.
For example, the DE 2.0 provides new flexibility to use the descriptive portion of
the message separately from the content itself, providing a standardized
header structure for distribution of emergency information, even when
using other non-DE content distribution mechanisms. (See
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-if/download.php/49303/DE_2.0_Basics_Draft_ver_11b.doc)
Although the DE 2.0 was drafted, the revision never advanced to a
full OASIS standard due to lack of adoption, i.e. usage statements.
Recent renewed interest in the DE has raised the question of whether to
reform the Infrastructure Subcommittee and renew the task to incorporate current
feedback and revise the DE and/or DE 2.0 to finalize a new DE standard.
Your feedback on the following survey will be critical to determine
whether the effort is desired and worthwhile.
(1)Â Does your organization believe there is a need for a Distribution
Element? (Yes/No) Would your organization use the Distribution Element if it were
revised? (Yes/No)
(2) Do you believe either the DE or the DE 2.0 are sufficient "as-is"? (Yes/No)
If so, which do you prefer? (DE or DE 2.0). If not, what do you see
as the current impediments to adoption?
(3) If the DE were revised once again, what would be your 5 top needs that
you would like to see addressed?
(4) If the Infrastructure Subcommittee were reformed, would you or
another representative of your organization participate and help to
revise the DE? (Yes/No)
(5) Do you recommend reforming the Infrastructure Subcommittee to
develop a new version of the DE? (Yes/No)
Please provide any other comments/suggestions below:
Thanks for your feedback.