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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

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

Subject: Cross Standard Definition of Incident Types

This email is in regards to a question I asked in the agenda of the 7/1

Here is what I wrote in that original email: 

a recent thread within the MSG SC (several messages - starts with
got my gears turning and I wanted to throw something out to the group
and get feedback. In a nutshell, do we think we will use incident types
across several/all of our standards? If so, should we define those
external to any one standard as part of its own data dictionary? That
way each of our standards could use it as they need/see fit. Note that I
do not want to slow or disrupt CAP with this question, so the "right"
answer might be two pronged (short-term vs. long-term). Art had some
good comments/thoughts on why we need to be VERY careful to even
CONSIDER this, so this is not by any means a definite. Art, can you pull
together notes from that email and reply to this message at some point
with your thoughts?

Specifically, I was wondering if it made sense for us to standardize,
either by our own creation or through adoption, of various incident
types. Right now, for instance, CAP specifies some incident types. We do
not want to disrupt or slow down CAP, but we may want to think broader
about incident definitions for CAP 1.1/2.0 and other/future EM TC


R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC

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