RE: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks Robin,

It's good to have a range of observational viewpoints to draw from. In this 
case, we have SAIC to UN/CEFACT to Navy CIO. And OASIS, of course.

Regards,
Rex

At 05:15 PM 2/10/2005, Robin Cover wrote:
>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.
> >
> >
>
>--
>
>
>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