Re: [emergency] FW: Inter-Governmental Information Sharing Standards: Meeting March 8

[Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>]

Hey all,
I tend to agree that we must focus on our work at hand.  Where there are 
people within OASIS that can carry the CAP banner to the upcoming overseas 
conferences, I applaud and support those efforts.  However, we have enough 
on our plate and the workers are few.  We haven't moved the EDXL 
distribution header along as fast as I had hoped.  I'll be putting out the 
agenda for the Tues meeting over the weekend and plan to have as an item 
discussion about a schedule to move EDXL forward.  We agreed in our face to 
face meeting at XML2004 to leave the policy/vocabulary issues to those that 
had the proper jurisdiction.  There is no reason we can't have input and be 
informed, but we need to try to move on.  Let's focus on CAP 1.1 in comment 
and schedule the EDXL work. Elysa


At 01:25 PM 2/18/2005, Art Botterell wrote:
>Friends -
>
>In support of comments by Rex and Len... I wonder if we're in danger of 
>letting ourselves get bogged down in other folks' turf battles and grand 
>schemes to the detriment of the specific job we've taken on.
>
>Per Len, I'm not sure that a degree of diversity is necessarily a bad 
>thing, considering the relatively early stage such standards efforts are 
>really at, and that we have a mechanism (namespaces) for preventing 
>confusion until the user base / marketplace sorts things out.
>
>And per Rex, I'm not sure that either determining the One True Vocabulary 
>or harmonizing multiple standards efforts is really within this TC's 
>scope.  Ultimately, only the practitioners can resolve the long-standing 
>questions of interdisciplinary nomenclature. Personally, I'd be inclined 
>to leave those questions to policy-level groups like the EIC and, of 
>course, to the responsible agencies themselves (e.g., the NIMS Integration 
>team).
>
>In particular, I'm not sure a full-scale comparison of CAP, EDXL and GJXDM 
>(and IEEE 1512?) is really our job.  We've agreed to address a specific 
>set of requirements, which include a fairly specific example 
>vocabulary.  In the interests of making tangible progress, might we be 
>wiser to limit ourselves to searching other standards for existing 
>equivalents to the particular items in the EDXL Routing Block requirements 
>as provided by FEMA and EIC?
>
>All these larger issues do need attention, at the appropriate time and in 
>the appropriate venues... but I'm suggesting that this TC may get more 
>done by "sticking to our knitting" than by letting ourselves be embroiled 
>into other people's issues.
>
>- Art
>
>
>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.
>
>