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] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses

I have received some very good comments on GJXDM from some OGC members. They 
have asked me to bundle the comments up and pass them on. I was wondering 
what the best mechanism would be to properly share these comments with the 
GJXDM folks?

Thanks for any guidance.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daconta, Michael" <Michael.Daconta@dhs.gov>
To: <rexb@starbourne.com>; <acb@incident.com>; "Daconta, Michael" 
<Michael.Daconta@dhs.gov>; <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses

> Hi Everyone,
> I will email the group later with more thoughts on GJXDM.  In general, I 
> agree with Rex's position below.  My concern I expressed yesterday was 
> because I have seen it many times before where groups favor invention over 
> reuse.  I know the GJXDM is not perfect but I also  believe it is well 
> worth the effort to fix, improve and reuse it.
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
> To: Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>; Daconta, Michael 
> <Michael.Daconta@dhs.gov>; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org 
> <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wed Dec 29 18:53:42 2004
> Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
> Just to add my $.02 a bit further, I don't think there is much chance
> of us adopting a "not-invented-here" parochialism. Since a few of us
> are trudging through the entire GJXDM to discover what and where the
> differences are with the work we've done so far, I suspect that we
> will most likely recommend best practices for implementors to use the
> appropriate namespaced term.  To do that we must first do the
> diligence of comprehensive comparison so  we can then look at
> similarities, duplications and differences and make our
> recommendations.
> And just to add a bit more, while I am keeping my mind open to
> alternatives, I suspect we will end up settling on the use of an
> ontological approach to making our recommendations: for uses in
> inontology/taxonomy x, use schema a, for uses in ontology/taxonomy y,
> use b, etc. I am personally in favor of using existing work whereever
> it doesn't require too many extensions to cover the requirements we
> have scoped for the particular piece of work.
> Ciao,
> Rex..
> At 1:14 PM -0800 12/29/04, Art Botterell wrote:
>>Michael, it's not my intent to disturb you.  However, I assume you'd
>>agree that there's also a risk in trying to force what may prove to
>>be unlike concepts into like boxes just for short-term convenience.
>>We need to look carefully at the realities of the real-world
>>applications and processes before reflexively adopting prior art
>>just because "it was there first."  I'm sure you're not suggesting
>>the latter approach.  Nor have I ever objected to reuse where it's
>>- Art
>>At 4:04 PM -0500 12/29/04, Daconta, Michael wrote:
>>>This email thread is disturbing... I would hope this TC can avoid
>>>the "not invented here syndrome" and focus on reusing schema
>>>elements where the concepts are equivalent or can be aligned.
>>>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>
>>>To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>>Sent: Wed Dec 29 15:43:52 2004
>>>Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
>>>At 9:34 AM -0500 12/29/04, Ham, Gary A wrote:
>>>>To be GJXDM compliant we would probably have to change the "eventType"
>>>>to something more akin to "EmergencyEventTypeCode"...
>>>I'm not sure whether "compliant" is the right criterion.  Our
>>>functional goal is "compatible"... framing it in terms of compliance
>>>transforms a technical issue into a political one.  I'm not sure
>>>that's either necessary or wise.
>>>Not necessary because we have the mechanism of namespaces to allow
>>>domain-specific element design choices to be made "close to the
>>>ground," nearer to functional concerns and farther from bureaucratic
>>>ones.  It gives us a viable alternative to the
>>>grand-unified-data-model-of-everything approach, which I'm afraid may
>>>be self-defeating in its scope.
>>>And not wise for several reasons:
>>>1) Adopting a stance of "compliance" to one user group... in this
>>>case, the justice community... necessarily distances us a bit from
>>>others... fire, transportation, health, etc.  While I realize that
>>>Justice is ascendant in post-9/11 America, we're part of an
>>>international standards organization and those of us who've been at
>>>this for awhile have seen these trends shift back and forth over the
>>>2) There's a learning curve here.  As Gary points out, just because
>>>the GJXDM was the earliest and largest doesn't mean it got everything
>>>right.  We need to leave the door open for learning and improvement.
>>>(After all, the US had the first color television standard in the
>>>world... and as a result spent the next forty years looking at the
>>>worst color tv pictures in the world.)
>>>3) As mentioned above, the wider the scope of a data model, the more
>>>technical and political inertia it accumulates.  Keeping a degree of
>>>compartmentalization lends flexibility, so long as there's a
>>>mechanism (e.g., namespaces) for preventing collisions.
>>>Now I'm not arguing against adopting an ISO 11179-based naming
>>>scheme.  I'm just suggesting that we ought to think carefully and
>>>explicitly before slipping into an assumption that we're somehow
>>>obliged to comply with some other group's scheme.
>>>- Art
>>>Art Botterell
>>>Common Alerting Protocol Program Manager
>>>Partnership for Public Warning
>>>(707) 750-1006
>>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
>>>roster of the OASIS TC), go to
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
>>roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> -- 
> Rex Brooks
> President, CEO
> Starbourne Communications Design
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
> W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
> Email: rexb@starbourne.com
> Tel: 510-849-2309
> 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.

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