Re: [emergency] OJP requirement to use the jxdm

[R. Allen Wyke <emergency-tc@earthlink.net>]

Let me see if I can clarify what I was trying to point out. I was  
trying to illustrating that the work of the EM TC has nothing to do  
with OJP or any requirement they have placed. Just like we have no ties  
to any other group. Basically, they have nothing to do with us. We  
would not be an open standards committee if our efforts were dictated  
by a single entity.

This is especially true given the fact that the public sector, of which  
OJP is a % of, is only half of why the EM TC was formed and to which we  
are building standards. Let's not forget about the business continuity  
efforts within the private sector, which is the other half the  
equation. We do not let a single entity in the private sector dictate  
to us how we do things either.

Now, that being said we, as the TC, clearly have to be cognizant of the  
environment around us. We can not act like some bigger than big group  
that everyone must bow down to. In that sense we must, which the email  
Gary P points out, stay in touch with our target audience - the  
implementers, check writers, etc. When we view OJP in that light they  
become a valuable input to our efforts, BUT THEY DO NOT dictate them -  
especially since they do not represent a majority of the benefit of the  
usage of our standards, CAP included, in the "real world."

Additionally, standards such as CAP and JXDM *should* (RFC 2119) do  
what they can to coordinate efforts. No one wants to reinvent the wheel  
and we all want to focus on the areas that we have the most domain  
expertise and can provide the most value. For instance, it would be  
unfair for either group to force another into their way of thinking,  
BUT collaborating in places that make sense to help us both create  
better and complementary standards - well, that is the whole idea of  
working together.

Hope this helps. Wasn't trying to argue if the question was right or  
wrong - just trying to point out that it has nothing to do with us  
within the scope of why the EM TC was formed and by which the Charter  
lays out.

Allen

On Jul 27, 2004, at 9:42 AM, Ham, Gary A wrote:

> Allen,
>
> I recently compared the two as well.  Gary P is right.  The structure  
> of
> how the elements are named is not consistent with the Justice model.  I
> believe that it may also be the reason that some validators are not
> reading it correctly while others are.
>
> He is not arguing with content, or even the valid XML that comes from
> using CAP.  It is the structure (or maybe just the style) of the schema
> that is inconsistent. I had thought that it was our intent to be
> consistent with the justice style. I do not know that itis a  
> requirement
> to be consistent, but it is a fact that we are not.
>
> R/s
>
> Gary A. Ham
> Senior Research Scientist
> Battelle Memorial Institute
> 540-288-5611 (office)
> 703-869-6241 (cell)
> "You would be surprised what you can accomplish when you do not care  
> who
> gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poindexter, Gary [mailto:gary.poindexter@bearingpoint.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 9:34 AM
> To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [emergency] OJP requirement to use the jxdm
>
>
>
> I believe you've missed the point. They have defined compliance in the
> context of how a schema is constructed and stated that this someone  
> will
> promote interoperability. They then require "compliance" for all OJP
> funded projects that use XML. In effect, if you don't follow their
> guidelines for constructing a schema based upon the jxdm, you are not
> compliant.
>
> gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R. Allen Wyke [mailto:emergency-tc@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:58 AM
> To: Poindexter, Gary
> Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [emergency] OJP requirement to use the jxdm
>
>
> There may have been CAP implementations funded by various groups, but
>
> the efforts of this Technical Committee at OASIS is funded by no one
>
> other than the members dedicating their time and any resources they so
>
> do choose. In short, we are an open standards committee that is not
>
> directed by any other group.
>
> Good question though - Allen
>
> On Jul 27, 2004, at 12:29 AM, Poindexter, Gary wrote:
>
>>
>> Please excuse my potential ignorance, I watch this TC with interest
>
>> but participate sparingly.
>>
>> A couple assumptions:
>>
>> 1) EM projects are sometimes funded by the OJP.
>>
>> 2) The CAP 1.0 proposal is not in any way consistent with the Justice
>
>> XML Data Dictionary model (jxdm). I believe this was discussed at some
>
>> point in the past and efficiency was chosen as a higher priority than
>
>> the sometimes massive and inefficient schemas developed using the
>
>> jxdm.
>>
>> If these assumptions are true, members of this TC need to review and
>
>> comment (to OJP) on the contents of the page at
>
>> http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=138 and most importantly the
>
>> statement at the bottom of the page which reads:
>>
>> "All recipients of Office of Justice Programs (OJP) grants for
>
>> projects implementing XML technology are required to use the Global
>
>> Justice XML Data Model and publish all XML schemas resulting from use
>
>> of the Model in the Justice Standards Clearinghouse (JSC) located at
>
>> http://www.it.ojp.gov/jsc. This requirement is stipulated as a Special
>
>> Condition to their grant that is referred to as a Common Exchange
>
>> Standard."
>>
>> If my assumptions are correct, the impact of this requirement could be
>
>> great and negative.
>>
>> gary poindexter
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> *
>
>> ****************************
>> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
>
>> privileged.  Access to this email by anyone other than the intended
>
>> addressee is unauthorized.  If you are not the intended recipient of
>
>> this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution,
>
>> retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
>
>> it is prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the intended
>
>> recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the
>
>> sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof
>
>> from your system.
>> **********************************************************************
>> *
>
>> ****************************
>
>
> *********************************************************************** 
> *
> ***************************
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged.  Access to this email by anyone other than the intended
> addressee is unauthorized.  If you are not the intended recipient of
> this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention,
> or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is
> prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient,
> please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and
> delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your
> system.
> *********************************************************************** 
> *
> ***************************
>
> 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_wor
> kgroup.php.
>