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, Art, Allen, Elliot, et al,

Let me preface this with a note that I started responding to this 
yesterday, got busy, and also felt I should let some time go by and 
listen to others before returning to this. So I will leave some of my 
initial reply, and address a number of issues that have been raised, 
without including all of the the now long list of messages in this 
very vital thread. I will leave the specific thread to which I was 
responding. The others I will refer to in broad terms, so please 
excuse me if I get the attribution of a specific comment wrong.

First, we are not offering excuses, we are making a point of 
including stakeholders that have not been adequately representing 
themselves, by informing them of where we are in the process. Before 
Mr. Fulgate's letter on behalf of PPW, I had not heard a specific 
suggestion on how to deal with this issue. There may be a way to make 
this suggestion work by specifying that the optional mechanism use 
Mime Type declarations as part of text versions of binaries, which 
may also make it possible to skirt other issues. Another mechanism 
would be to have the option include SOAP, and SOAP with attachments, 
which may also provide one (but not necessarily to only) solution to 
the problem of including photos, video clips, audio clips, etc. I 
realize that this will not suit some applications, but remember that 
it is optional.

Art, Allen is right, I meant in my first reply, that this 
constituency had not been adequately represented by only using PPW 
and you, since their concerns are but one of many for you, and you 
have had your hands full with getting CAP to this point. You were 
right in that I did not express that in a clear way and so it seemed 
that I was saying that they were not represented at all. Mea Culpa.

I think Carl's suggestion is good, but it is also incumbent on us to 
get in contact with these folks if we can and let them know where we 
stand. I personally think that getting something out there for public 
review, and then making sure this audience gets the message is the 
best way to get them involved. I am not talking about PPW, but the TV 

However, having said that, I also feel I should say that we are going 
to run smack into the ROYALTIES quagmire with the TV people, and we 
could spend the next year arguing about accepting or not accepting 
MPEG-4, and get no standard to use where we can actually use one now. 
We have the exact same problem with Flash. This is the main problem 
with the feature they suggest of adding an optional mechanism for 
adding binary content. OASIS IPR policy requires that any IPR claims 
by any parties contributing to the specification be made public 
before a standard can be considered for an OASIS-wide vote. I don't 
think we have a problem with going forward with the Committee 
Specification as it now stands, but this is an issue that we can put 
at the top of the list of public comments with which the TC would 
necessarily have to resolve before going forward to whichever of the 
next steps in the TC process we decide to follow after the initial 
30-day public comment period. I should also say that we are not, I 
believe, required to limit this public comment period to 30 days, nor 
that we must immediately move on to a next stage immediately 

I doubt anyone is suggesting that perhaps we should put our work on 
indefinite hold until someone comes along to offer a completely 
acceptable proposal for handling this constituency? I thought the 
point of getting CAP out there was to start getting feedback and get 
a v1.0 that addresses the needs we have no proven that we are capable 
of addressing now. Maybe the imminence of having a standard that does 
not address their needs will stimulate them to do something tangible 
about it. However, I have been waiting for reliable RF statement out 
of MPEG-4 for five years now, and it still hasn't happened though I 
have been assured innumerable times that if I just go along and adopt 
their standards, it will all work out. I suspect the the governmental 
agencies in general will not accept MPEG-4. I doubt the European 
Union will accept it. And the Navy has said in the recent past that 
it won't accept MPEG-4.

One last thought, The TV folks, not PPW, have to be responsible for 
their own bailiwick. We can't do that for them, nor can we be held up 
indefinitely due to their situation.

I think we should move forward and combine the suggestions that Carl, 
Elliot and I have made for providing a way to include the Broadcast 
Media. We will probably have to do some more work on the spec and go 
through another 30-day public comment period, but maybe not.

My last thought is for Allen and the notion of breaking an 
application. I ran into this problem in another venue in OASIS and 
pointed out that applications have the ability to adapt a lot more 
easily than does the spec-writing process. Also, as you say, breaking 
does not necessarily mean that the whole app collapses, and when we 
get to finally defining a test suite we have the task of clearly 
deciding what the differences are between compliance and conformance, 
with conformance related ONLY to MUST statements. That's a 
particularly tricky distinction. To accommodate this we probably will 
need to institute a permanent Conformance SC, but that is a different 
matter. In any event, the app builders are represented pretty well, 
and you are doing a responsible job of representing their interests 
and yours.

I think I have covered most of the comments that I felt were 
potential deal-breakers. We are very close to a good and, more 
importantly, A VERY USEABLE SPEC. We can improve, indeed we are 
already tasked with improving it, but please, let's move forward.


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

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

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