| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: [emergency] EM TC 3/11/03 Meeting Minutes
- From: CSubatch@eteam.com
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:45:06 -0800
EM TC Weekly Meeting Minutes – 03/11/03
Allen Wyke – Blue292 (Chair)
Rick Carlton – E Team (Co-chair)
Cathy M. Subatch – E Team
Eliot Christian – DOI
Gary Ham – DMI-S
Mark Benemerito – SunGard Planning Solutions
Bona Nasition – MTG Management Consultants
Dave Robinson - Wells Fargo N.A.
Karl Kotilak – NC4
Art Botterell – Partnership for Public Warning
Rex Brook – Individual
Steve Jepsen – Oracle
Jay Clark – Ship Analytics
John Aerts – ISAB
Bill Schroeder - ESRI
Steve Seigel - RAMSafe
Steve DeWeese – X.systems
Steve Vincik – Unisys
Michael Aisenberg – Verisign (Observer)
John Silva – Silva Consulting Services (Observer)
David Danko – ESRI (Observer)
Allen Wyke opened the meeting by asking if all were clear on the process of using contributed information in the TC and referenced the email he recently send which details how OASIS manages contributed information (see the IPR policy at http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.shtml) . The committee members should review (if haven't already) and determine if this will work for them. For example, Blue 292 has offered some technology that the group can work with. Art mentioned CAP, which he works on, as other contributed information the TC may want to use.
Next agenda item - the face-to-face meeting. Besides those that responded to the email message from last week to confirm the April 3rd date we also took a poll of those on the call. The majority is going to be able to attend the meeting if held on April 3rd.
§ It was agreed that the first face-to-face meeting for the EM TC would be held on Thursday, April 3rd, from 9:30am – 4:30pm EST in Arlington, VA, hosted by Federal Support Systems. Details have been sent in a separate email.
§ Hotel and travel information will be sent out in an email in the next few days.
The final item for discussion was the draft of the Requirements Document. Allen has completed the first high-level draft based on previous meeting and emails discussions and had distributed for review and discussion. Some general comments around the discussion:
§ Areas of focus are based on the original charter and call to action
§ Subcommittees will have their own requirements
§ We will be leveraging existing work
§ Have put a structure in place where we can now elaborate on terminology
§ Two sets of areas we should focus on:
§ Core standards
§ Meta data/semantical data
§ Need to be able to apply standards in a non-obtrusive way without jeopardizing any current investments.
§ Art – how to define an incident – a related series of events. Is unclear on the meta-dimension of this
§ John – We need to look at standards bodies such as NIST and FIPS
§ Rick – Need to look at Homeland Security Presidential Directive #5 (HFPD5). Discusses process goals and schedule guidelines for alert management. Group should be aware of this work and we should build a standard that is compatible to that. Document can be found at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html
§ Art – Specifically check out item #15 in the directive – refers to a National Incident Management System. The use of ICS will be mandatory. The framework with which standards are used must be consistent. Committee members need to become familiar with this directive.
§ Rick – ICS process differs and we should stay away from that.
§ Eliot – had to leave meeting early but wanted to mention that he is involved with CAP work.
Questions on subcommittees:
§ Allen – - there are eight different areas to focus on initially, which Allen read (see document at http://lists.oasis-open/archives/emergency/200303/msg00009.html). These are high-level containers from which to create sub-committees.
§ Art – Start with CAP – rather narrow for public alerting but work for other areas
§ Allen – should we vote that this is the first area
§ Rick – The W3C RFD should be included (www.w3.org.RDR)
§ Art – Another area is financial tracking – it's a lot of work and crucially important
§ Michael A. – Health's integrity of services providers has to be key
§ Allen – We'll add a bullet of focus for both Public Health and Financial Services. Where else should be focus?
o Notification method and messages is a priority
o Financial tracking and public health (also bubble to the top)
o GIS? - there are already standards. How applicable is it? Should we provide a layer on top of standard?
§ Art – nothing that is for GIS data per se as a methodology for managing and interpreting the data. Everything will touch the GIS space. Is this OCG's space?
§ Bill – How does OCG fit in?
§ Gary – the point reference in any geospatial space system is latitude and longitude
§ Art – only provide a point of reference information
§ Allen – Is infrastructure in place or up to implementer? Should there be a subgroup? Needs to be hashed out to see if it fits
§ Art – may be a horizontal function – geospatial advisory and liaison to OCG. Ask for review of spatial elements from other subcommittees or do we need a subcommittee?
§ Bill – GIS data folks trying to integrate. Prevalent in all local communities in terms of interoperability. What is it that an EM Group believes need to interoperate with common reference model? Points and shapes? COTS and client functions use maps. Maybe a definition is required
§ Rick – supports this notion
§ Rex – Probably rises to the level of needed a subcommittee. Better to have them coordinated
§ Bill – think of interfaces rather than shapes and models.
§ All agreed. Put a group aside to look at GIS and continue a GIS discussion at our face-to-face meeting
o Art – back to our initial target areas, how about resource management? That has come up a number of times
o Rick – includes fixed, global and capital assets
o Allen: Let's shrink the list of eight to the following:
§ Notification Method and Messages
§ Resource Management
§ Financial Tracking and Public Health (added to original list)
Allen will incorporate all changes made during today's discussion into the draft standards document. At next committee meeting we can formalize who will lead sub-committees
Allen - help is describing metadata – don't disrupt existing systems and standards. Span multiple standards and add value. Add additional information in a way that doesn't break things and can be leveraged.
§ John – Recommendation – please put in as an attribute
§ Rick - Supporting Allen – package of binary mechanism.
§ Michael – support, especially in public health. Set of meta-data, easier to figure out
§ Art – Beginning to hear stuff to go into a SOAP header. How strong is web services architecture momentum? Discuss group needs to have. Nominate SOAP and WSDL to add to reference list of standards
§ John – Team should also check www.agileprogram.org (be aware of this program)
§ Allen: will implement changes to the draft requirements document and distribute to group.
§ Cathy: send email regarding face-to-face meeting details
§ Membership: review requirements document and make any comments prior to next meeting
Tuesday, March 18th, 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]