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

Very well stated. While some areas, at the appropriate time, need to be
drilled down into even further than you have most graciously done here,
I agree on all points.


On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 11:03, Rex Brooks wrote:
> 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 
> people.
> 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 
> thereafter.
> 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.
> Ciao,
> Rex
> 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.
> >>
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC

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