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


On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 gpoindexter@wi.rr.com wrote:

> I read a good deal of the document Paul provided. I think you would be better
> served to read the DON NDR 2.0 and come to your own conclusions.

Not sure what this thread is about, but you can find URLs for
three recently released NDRs here:

"XML Naming and Design Rules Specifications Published by OASIS, UN/CEFACT, 
and Navy CIO"

http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-01-31-a.html

I recently made a few corrections based upon communication with
Mavis Cournane.

- Robin Cover

=================================================================



> The document is at:
> 
> http://www.doncio.navy.mil/(s25543uy21l0tvurcpfqixvj)/main.aspx
> 
> Gary Poindexter 
> gary.poindexter@xmllegal.org 
> Mobile: 414-467-8222
> Fax   : 770-216-1633 
> <xmlLegal> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Embley [mailto:pembley@mstar.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 7:23 AM
> To: gary.poindexter@xmllegal.org; 'Elysa Jones'
> Cc: 'Rex Brooks'; 'Carl Reed OGC'; 'Daconta, Michael'; acb@incident.com;
> emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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]