RE: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks Paul,

This is genuinely appreciated. It is also appreciated that it has a Table 
of Contents. Got two reports last week without such consideration. Makes 
one wonder.

Regards,
Rex

At 05:23 AM 2/7/2005, Paul Embley wrote:
>Attached is the high level write-up describing Dept of Navy's and Global's
>approaches to using XML.
>
>Paul S. Embley
>Practitioner Resource Group
>502.695.7733 (office)
>502.545.0127 (cell)
>502.695.0055 (fax)
>pembley@ghinternational.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gpoindexter@wi.rr.com [mailto:gpoindexter@wi.rr.com]
>Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 1:06 PM
>To: Elysa Jones
>Cc: Rex Brooks; Carl Reed OGC; Daconta, Michael; rexb@starbourne.com;
>acb@incident.com; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
>
>If you are going to evaluate and contrast approaches you might want to also
>look at the Department of Navy, XML Naming and Design Rules (DON NDR). It is
>supposed to be available on the DON CIO's web site. If not, I can provide a
>copy.
>
>I find the DON NDR approach to be much more flexible and logical than the
>gjxdm monster schema approach. I also believe it would be more consistent
>with the work of this TC. I proposed a similar organizational structure for
>the gjxdm after the initial pre-release.
>
>gary
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>
>Date: Saturday, February 5, 2005 10:30 am
>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.>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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_workgro
>up.php.
>

Rex Brooks
President, CEO, Starbourne Communications Design
Executive Director, Humanmarkup.org, Inc.
1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
510-849-2309