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

On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 18:36, Art Botterell wrote:
> 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).

Keep in mind that getting what you ask for also means you get things you
didn't plan for.

As a reminder, the problem with adding this is that it breaks other
things - it breaks things from the majority of our members building
applications. Note that I am not saying apps crash - I am saying
business processes no longer work, and the mediums across which we
exchange data may not be able to handle these just by "adding a single
optional element."

For instance, you say it is optional - but what if it is not? What if
the image itself is the payload carrying the "intent"? What then? It
means that a CAP supporting app, which supporting the schema/spec,
fails. It means that assets or lives could be lost, because what was in
that photo (say a mug shot of a murder) was the only important data. And
this doesn't even begin to address the infrastructure issues, which we
have not fully assessed.

And what if the inline attachment is 1MB in size? Or maybe 1GB or a
terrabyte? My point isn't of what is extreme or not, but that much like
legal documents, standards have to think about how to handle, and
therefore address these kinds of things. Additional language,
potentially elements or attributes, and certainly tests have to be
performed to ensure what we say works. Nothing is "little".

Anyway, I am confused why this is being brought up again, because the TC
agreed on this back at the mini-f2f. I even mentioned that the need
could be addressed by including the image in the same envelope, as in
SOAP, and the URI being relative. When stated I was told "that will
work". What changed?

> 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.

You know, this entire statement is not only unfair to the work of the
whole TC, but inappropriate. I am ashamed to even see that in our list.
The team here has worked incredible hard, including you, to create a
standard that applies to the industries and organizations we represent.
We have brought together a diverse group of people, experience, and
minds to do the best we can. We have put faith, blood, and tears into
the democratic process at OASIS, and we have voted on issues as a whole
that impacted our efforts. Even during trying times we have stuck it
out, come together, and progressed. To even imply, let alone state, that
somehow exercising some patience with how to address broadcast media in
the best possible, and least damaging way is a failure....well, I
wholeheartedly disagree.

> - 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
> >applies.
> >
> >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?
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Carl
> >
> >----- 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
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >>
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
> >roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC

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