[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. > >Regards, >Rex > >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. >> >>Carl >> >>----- 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 >>>>appropriate. >>>> >>>>- 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 >>>>>decades. >>>>> >>>>>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 >>>>>www.PartnershipForPublicWarning.org >>>>>(707) 750-1006 >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>> >>>-- >>>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. >>> >> > >Rex Brooks >President, CEO, Starbourne Communications Design >Executive Director, Humanmarkup.org, Inc. >1361-A Addison >Berkeley, CA 94702 >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]