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

Glad to hear about the comments from OGC.  Either way or both is fine for 
getting them out.  As EM-TC chair, I have been invited to a couple of 
meetings with the Justice folks during the week of NEMA (Feb11-17).  The 
data issues will be on the agenda for a meeting with DHS-DM, EIC, Justice 
and others Feb 16-17.  Your comments will be helpful.  Thanks, Elysa

At 10:03 AM 2/5/2005, Rex Brooks wrote:
>Hi Carl,
>I think that if you send the comments to the EM TC mailing list, all of us 
>in this group will get it, but what I would do in addition is to put the 
>comments in the body of the message and then upload the document 
>separately to the TC document repository so that we have two ways of 
>accessing it and referring to it.
>At 07:28 AM 2/5/2005, Carl Reed OGC wrote:
>>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" 
>>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 
>>>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
>>>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.
>>>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 
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO, Starbourne Communications Design
>Executive Director, Humanmarkup.org, Inc.
>1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
>the OASIS TC), go to 

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