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] Comments and Common Terms

Title: Message
It is probably worth while to reply to the issues addressed here.  For the most part they are directly addressable to the fact that we all were building alpha level prototypes to a draft specification which will need considerable effort.  I found it amazing that the various implementors did as well as they did given the circumstances. 
Regarding the first issue.  A .NET connection to the DMIS interface is in place and working.  (Actually not .NET but agnostic SOAP that works just fine with NET).  The DMIS interop team has built a sample C# client showing how to use it effectively.
On the second issue, I have put a draft schema up on the OASIS - TC workspace.  It works, but is clearly an alpha release in the sence that validation needed for the Area element is not effectively represented in the schema.  Other issues may also need to be addressed as the TC works on the spec.  
On tthe third issue, I non-concur for the most part.  The real value of the EDXL Distribution element is its encapsulation away from content. This allows a distribution capability to be built that is agnostic with relation to content.  Putting EDXL Distribution in the content of the message ruins the opportunity for "build once, use many."  I have spoken recently with two different companies who are interested in using EDXL Distribution precisely because thay can divorce it from content.  This allows them to pass legacy content far more effectively that they could have otherwise done.  It also allows them to add and or strip distribution as needed for usability applicability within multiple applications that might use the same content information.  This does not mean that EDXL Distribution could not be used in "one-off" implementations of specific content for routing purposes.  In general, however, I would vote against any such standard until I could see a well-defined requirement for specifically coupling of content and distribution.  

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: Sukumar Dwarkanath [mailto:sdwarkanath@comcare.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:00 PM
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] Comments and Common Terms

I have attached the document that you requested; and I believe a few have of you have already seen it. It contains comments from the early implementers, and I am not sure if all the comments are still relevant at this stage.


Update on the common terms project: The initial idea was originally from Bob Greeves, but we – ComCARE – are facilitating the project, and at this stage, we are still working on the specifics to put the process in place.  


Pleas let me know if you have additional questions or clarifications.







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