Fw: [emergency] Broadcast, TV, PPW, etc.

["CONSULTRAC" <rcarlton@consultrac.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "CONSULTRAC" <rcarlton@consultrac.com>
To: <emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:38 AM
Subject: Fw: [emergency] Broadcast, TV, PPW, etc.


> I have been reading these threads with great interest and believe that,
> from an infrastructure perspective, some simplicity of thought may be
> useful: To whit the following questions:
>
>  1. Who are we trying to deliver CAP 1.0 messages to? Answering this
> question will orient us to the various necessary enabling mechanisms and
> infrastructures.
> 2. What are we trying to deliver? Necessary composition and format,
already
> generally defined within CAP 1.0, but left open to further refinement as
> reflected by the current dialogue.
> 3. Why are we delivering these messages? Lets formally define the use
> case(s) for CAP 1.0. This will re-orient us to various infrastructures,
> payload types and requirements.
> 4. When do we need to deliver CAP 1.0 messages? This goes to the question
of
> persistant, versus demand-based, infrastructure mechanisms, and/or
> capabilities.
> 5. Where do we need to deliver CAP 1.0 messages? Knowing "where" messages
> are to be delivered focuses our effort on the various available delivery
> methods and constraints.
>
> In general, however, it appears that we are trying to answer questions
based
> on "thinking" rather than "knowing" what we're talking about. That clearly
> puts the cart before the horse and, in my view, is of dubious value in
> standards setting where clarity of thought and methodical attention to
> detail are most critical.
>
> I have a meeting with the folks at NDS in the morning. At that time I will
> engage them in a dialogue associated with these, and other broader
> terresteral broadcast issues. Once that relationship is initiated we will
> have an expert source available to us which we should assertively leverage
> in the dialogue related to infrastructure, message payload and transport
> delivery methods. Additionally, it is my belief that we should engage in a
> direct dialogue with the authors of the PPW letter to insure that their
> interests are clearly understood in the context of that document, in
> addition to identifying other potential "expert" knowledge-partners as
> evolve our thinking in the future.
>
> It might be useful to remember that we are engaged in a marathon not a
> sprint. The current CAP spec contains language that specifically leaves
the
> schema open to further refinement as its requirements change based on our
> acquisition of "better" information. It should be apparent, therefore,
that
> we won't be done any time soon, and must accept iterative development as a
> baseline. This means that at various points in time we'll either be on, or
> off, the mark depending on what we "know" versus what we "think." In my
> view, however, it is most important to settle down and methodically
"figure
> it out." Otherwise, we're just a mob of "smart guys" with too much time on
> our hands.
>
>  Rick
>
>