Re: [emergency] OJP requirement to use the jxdm

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

On Jul 27, 2004, at 11:09 AM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> So:
>
> Grant money requires JXDM compliance and CAP is not JXDM
> so compliance with JXDM is not required when implementing CAP?

Keep in mind that not all implementors implement CAP to try and get  
grant money - that is not the goal or objective of all implementations,  
nor the driver. In fact, I can definitively say that at least part of  
the motivation of why the TC was actually started and Chartered, since  
I wrote it, was due to the pressure to try and reduce the development  
time to interoperate with other systems and the costs associated with  
that - to positively impact the bottom-line of a software vendor in  
this space, while at the same time improving the solutions available  
that could help save lives and assets. Not to try and land grant money.

I realize that this was/is not the incentive for everyone and it may  
even currently be a minority in the membership today, but that view is  
in fact represented in the very document that started our existence and  
at least some % of the group today.

> Public safety companies want to know.  The lack of objections
> does not close the requirement for compliant deliverables.
> Of the documents posted, which are the Records of Authority
> governing the procurement transactions?
>
> Len Bullard
> Integraph Public Safety
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Embley [mailto:pembley@mstar.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:03 AM
> To: 'Poindexter, Gary'; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [emergency] OJP requirement to use the jxdm
>
>
> Hey Gary (et al),
>
> Allen is correct about the fact that the CAP effort is not funded by  
> OJP.
> Some/many (can't recall off the top of my head how many) of the efforts
> utilizing CAP receive some amount of OJP funding, and I've not heard  
> of any
> who have objected to the grant language.  I know for most of those  
> grants
> the language was the old "OJP *may* require compliance" vs. the newer
> language which I believe is less vague.
>
> Both Ken Gill (OJP) and I have been discussing that we need to do a  
> better
> job of reaching out to the CAP community.  Your e-mail gives us reason  
> to do
> more than talk about it, so appreciate you monitoring and reaching out  
> to
> the CAP community.
>
> Also wanted to note that Art's message is correct as well.  We started  
> from
> the same base, then didn't remain as active in each other's efforts as  
> maybe
> we should have.  Nothing that can't be resolved with better  
> communication.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Paul Embley
> Global XML Structured Task Force Chair
>
>
> -----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_workgro
> up.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_workgro
> up.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.
>