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: Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] PPW letter re CAP

Carl -

We aren't talking about something that needs to cause a delay... this 
could be resolved very quickly by adding a single optional element to 
the spec, with requisite caveats and restrictions set forth in its 
definition.  The mechanism involved has already been tested and 
proven in a number of XML applications, and implementation could even 
be defined as optional for most implementers (those not contemplating 
connections via one-way data links).

And I should remind us all that we aren't talking about an 
enhancement here... we're only talking about meeting our own stated 

This is a question of balancing the real, explicitly stated needs of 
a significant stakeholder community against speculative hazards... 
hazards that generally haven't materialized in other applications of 
the same method, and ones that in any event are easily mitigated with 
a few lines of specification text.

Regardless of how we might spin it, if we don't provide a solution 
that responds to users' stated needs I'm hearing from PPW member 
companies and others that market forces will require them to stop 
waiting for CAP and devise their own solutions in the very near 
future.  That would be a profoundly regrettable failure of the 
standards process, especially since it's so easily avoidable.

- Art

At 2:59 PM -0600 10/8/03, Carl Reed wrote:
>Art -
>We run into these issues all the time in our specification process at the
>OGC. It is impossible to satisfy every requirement for every application in
>every industry. There is an interesting balance between getting a spec out
>for use and getting one out that is also useful! I think the old 80/20 rule
>Anyway, perhaps a more positive way to position the CAP spec is to say that
>this is version 1 (one) and that future (new) requirements and change
>proposals will be considered and incorporated. This is the way we deal with
>the enhancement issue at the OGC. We accept change proposals, instantiate a
>spec Revision Working Group, work the suggested changes, and then put the
>modified spec up for member vote and adoption. Some of our specs have
>already gone through 5 or 6 revisions in 2 years. This does raise an issue
>of backwards compatibility and deprecation. But how is this different from
>any vibrant piece of technologies life cycle management?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Art Botterell" <acb@incident.com>
>To: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com>
>Cc: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:22 PM
>Subject: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] PPW letter re CAP
>>  [I've shifted this thread from the public comment list to the
>>  internal TC list.]
>>  Rex -
>>  Industry won't care what excuses we offer for not addressing their
>>  needs... they just need to decide, very shortly, whether to embrace
>>  CAP or go their own way.
>>  Anyway, I have difficulty with the idea that a lack of representation
>>  has somehow made us unable to address this.  In fact, there was and
>>  is representation: PPW, among others.  We've also received input on
>>  this issue in public comments.  And ultimately we can address
>>  whatever we choose to address.
>>  And the media standards and technologies involved are no more
>>  uncertain than in any other area.  In fact, because of the
>>  stabilizing force of the gigantic capital investments involved, I'd
>>  say that DTV in particular is actually one of the least uncertain
>>  environments in all of advanced digital technology.
>>  And those colossal investments, which are being programmed right now,
>>  are also why we're not likely to get a second chance to be responsive
>>  if we blow it this time.
>>  - Art
>>  >Thanks Art,
>>  >
>>  >This is very informative and useful. If I might suggest a way of
>>  >addressing the specific issue of full-spectrum media specification,
>>  >I think we should make it clear, perhaps with a disclaimer in the
>>  >spec or an open letter invitation aimed at broadcast television
>  > >media representatives to the effect that due to a lack of
>>  >representation of these interests combined with uncertainty about
>>  >both near-future technological development and existing and/or
>>  >planned technical standards directly related to these media, we were
>>  >unable to include such media in this initial, admittedly partial CAP
>>  >specification. This assumes that we all agree that the goal of
>>  >including these media is unanimously supported if we can determine
>>  >that it is both appropriate within OASIS and does not conflict with
>>  >other efforts.
>>  >
>>  >Just tryin to be helpful.
>>  >
>>  >Ciao,
>>  >Rex
>>  >
>>  >At 10:46 AM -0700 10/8/03, Art Botterell wrote:
>>  >>The attached is a letter from Craig Fugate, Chairman of the Board
>>  >>of Trustees of the Partnership for Public Warning.
>>  >>
>>  >>Attachment converted: Enterprise:PPW_Letter.PDF (PDF /CARO) (0029B681)
>>  >>To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to
>>  >>emergency-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit
>>  >>http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >--
>>  >Rex Brooks
>>  >GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
>>  >W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
>>  >Email: rexb@starbourne.com
>>  >Tel: 510-849-2309
>>  >Fax: By Request
>>  >
>>  >To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to
>>  >emergency-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit
>>  >http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
>>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
>the OASIS TC), go to
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
>roster of the OASIS TC), go to 

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