[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] FW: Inter-Governmental Information Sharing Standards: Meeting March 8
Sounds like a Plan to me. Ciao, Rex At 02:25 PM 2/18/2005, Elysa Jones wrote: >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. >> > > > > >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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]