| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: [emergency] EM TC 03/04/03 Meeting Minutes
- From: CSubatch@eteam.com
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:55:19 -0800
EM TC Weekly Meeting Minutes – 2/25/03
Allen Wyke – Blue292 (Chair)
Rick Carlton – E Team (Co-chair)
Cathy M. Subatch – E Team
Eliot Christian – DOI
Gary Ham – DMI-S
Art Botterell – Partnership for Public Warning
Joyce Kern – SunGard Planning Solutions
Mark Benemerito – SunGard Planning Solutions
Bona Nasition – MTG Management Consultants
Dave Robinson - Wells Fargo N.A.
Karl Kotilak – NC4
David Hall – Individual
Rex Brook – Individual
Steve Jepsen - Oracle
John Aerts – ISAB
James Morentz – SAIC
John Ruegg – ISAB
Allen Wyke opened meeting with a review of agenda. First item was to vote Cathy Subatch as official secretary. There was a large enough forum of attendees to take the vote during the call. All participants voted affirmative - Cathy is now the official Secretary of the TC. (Suggestion was made for future votes – to save time, instead of polling everyone, see if there are any objections).
Allen then wanted to wrap up issues from last week's discussion on incident's and emergencies – need to hone in on how we enable data to be tagged so it is easily identified by interoperability operations. He opened the floor for comments.
§ Art - Would like to bring in CAPs and allow them to add their wisdom. It is extraordinarily difficult to identify emergencies
§ Allen – Need to be looking at common undertones and figure out how to create a level of abstraction
§ Art – gave an example of what LA has done that was not successful. Found that segregating emergencies was less effective and when in place the end user found reason not to use. Need a tiered set of usage scenarios – day-to-day use better if human factors are in play. Its easy to tie hands if we get too rigorous about our bounds
§ Allen – look at how to improve bits of data. We must build something that provides value without compromising future growth
§ Rex – Start out at a general level and work down. Maybe use two categories of emergencies:
o Physical (fire, etc.)
§ Rick – Trying to identify the quality of emergencies may be too minutiae. Identify component parts and let specific incidents be:
o Categorized by use identified
o Break up into subcommittees to work on
§ Eliot – Distinction between physical and information may not work for us. His experience in disaster management defines an emergency as "that which has overwhelmed a single group." In terms of OASIS and interoperability group, the interface is the focus, "that which has to interact with something." Deal with more systems and how they become interoperable.
§ Allen – Interoperability could also mean using the same terminology.
§ Eliot – Emergency is defined as a situation that has implications beyond a single system to others (to which David agreed)
§ Allen – Interface is between two operating parts
§ Rex – where the systems overlap or encompass each other – seek help there
§ Gary – Cooperating systems even at the local level. Also, we shouldn't leave out medical or hospitals (where emergency systems must be tied)
§ John Aerts – Gave an example of Car Accident:
o Law enforcement gets a call (car accident is an incident)
o Driver of car has a heart attack – incident moves up to emergency. Must be able to communicate with another emergency agency at system to system level
o Hazardous spill on freeway as result of car accident – emergency becomes expanded even more
o Referred to posting by non-TC member, Claude "Len" Bullard - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency/200303/msg00003.html
o During an emergency its important to be able to keep communications between themselves an have the capability of keeping all the information with the emergency
§ Rick – we should be thinking of this as wrapped around functionality. We need to focus on capabilities (command, control and deployment of resources, etc.). Otherwise we are not reaching the whole continuum. Need interoperability standard, which defines capabilities to communicate. Define what is emergency continuum and what needs to be done to define capabilities.
o Web services model is a good indicator of what we should do (communicate anywhere, anytime across common backbone).
o Define new structure and standard to support the structure
§ Art – raised concern that we are dealing with a false dilemma. Challenge is not from top down or from bottom up but a combination of both. Getting too enmeshed in the metaphysical discussion of emergencies. Can discover a lot about general from specific and specific from generalities. Not clear on nature of standards document
§ Allen - the last three to four weeks of the TC has been devoted to understanding our landscape. This meshes with the schedule published in the charter. Goal is to create something that enables. The requirements document is where we go up to and where we stop. Then CAP comes into play and committees come into play
§ Eliot – People are starting to use CAP. Seen from Partnership for Public Warning project. Community wants to start from CAP – feeding stream of alerts. We should look at it as a basis of the standard. Can we use this to get started?
§ Gary – Use as single capability – one of the capabilities using Rick's terminology
§ Bona – Inquired as to whether the requirements document was a live document
§ Allen – the initial pass will be live. Then we need to put a stake in the ground and finalize. Look at Q1 deliverables for TC. Draft of first set of standards is due in Q2 so we are on schedule
§ Art – Suggestion that we shouldn't wait until end of Q1 to tackle task for Q2
§ Rex – Must do the requirements document first – this is the roadmap. A rough draft of the requirements document will be the best starting point. CAP and APCO are places to go. Then we can break up into groups. Doesn't have to be finalized but need a straw man
§ Allen – Requirements document must be actionable. Believes there is enough info based on these discussions to start to formulize document. Allen will get it on paper and circulate. Will work with Rick, Art, Eliot and John for additional input and have requirements document for review next week.
§ Steve – Need to focus on where people are spending money. For example, the National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS) is federally mandated and funded by CDC.
§ Allen - any other comments that would be useful for first draft of requirements document
§ John Aerts – Should get in touch with state of CA. Peace Office Standards and Training (POST) to see what they have and maybe use as a base (covers law enforcement, fires, maintenance, collection of funds)
§ Art – In CA, ICS has been mandated. Other states probably have similar mandates
§ Rick - don't forget to include financial side (David Robinson)
Final item on agenda was to discuss date and location for first face-to-face meeting.
§ Cathy reviewed input she received from membership.
o Majority wanted meeting on east coast, Washington DC was the preference.
o David Hall has agreed to host (though he may be on vacation, will have conference room with teleconference facilities for us to use). Office is located outside DC right near Reagan Airport
o Will work conference after the 2003 Secure E-Biz Summit (http://www.secure-biz.net), which is April 1 - 2, so we would meet April 2 – 3. Need to finalize logistics.
o Please RSVP
§ Allen: draft requirements document based on discussions at least three meetings.
§ Cathy: send email regarding face to face meeting
§ Membership: send any objections to date/location for face-to-face meeting.
Tuesday, March 11th, 1:00pm EST/10am PST
Dial in: 1.800.453.7412
Cathy M. Subatch
E Team Inc.
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]