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: Forwarded note from David Ellis

Thank you so much for the opportunity to participate in the CAP 1.1 standardization process.  Sandia National Laboratories is managed by Lockheed Martin and Tom can explain the type of membership they have with OASIS.  If necessary I could purchase an individual membership or I could continue to work through Tom.  I would prefer directly interacting with the EM TC because CAP and/or EDXL are going to be critical to the development of a national alerting system.
In that regards, I would like to began using CAP 1.1 to develop the CBRNE sensor network which would be a part of the DoD (alerting Framework) and the DHS (DMIS).  There are many Government agencies and companies which are a part of this effort (DoD JRO, North Command, DTRA, JPM-IS, the National Guard, the DOE National Laboratories represented by Sandia National Laboratories, Applied Research Associates, Inc, Applied Innovation Inc, Ensco Inc, Northrup Grumman, NuParadigm, RTI, SAIC, Sentel, and Sys technologies.)  If we are going to make some critical deadlines, we need to start using the CAP 1.1 format immediately.  What is the policy of using the proposed CAP 1.1 in our R&D effort in order to synchronies warning system deployment with the CAP 1.1 release?
Justification of Immediate needs:
  There also other parts of this emerging network which need the new functionality of CAP 1.1.  One is directing the elevation of Force Protection Condition from SAIC ASOCC to JPEN which could use the new <instruction> tag.  Another is the Guardian program for directing protective actions during a CBRNE attack.  Our CBRNE Sensor program needs to use the <derefUri> tag to pass sensor and video data.
NOTE on Null String Comment:
The data dictionary for code element in both the CAP 1.0 and 1.1 states “Any user-defined flag or special code used to flag the alert message for special handling”.  This causes many programmers to think of this as a status integer or some numeric priority code for the message.  Because this is a string and null is allowed if other CAP implementers sends the code tag with blank content the programs using non-string content often fail.  If there is a best practices policy, CAP programs should not send optional tags with null content and should perform checks for now string uses of tags.  I am open to helping work some implementation and/or testing guidance.
Attached is a Poster presented at the Conference on Science and Technology for Chem-Bio Information Systems on 19-21 October 2004 at Williamsburg Virginia.  Please forward to appropriate committee members to explain the urgency for CAP 1.1.
David E. Ellis
Information Management Architect
(505) 844-6697

Poster Design1.pdf

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