Re: [emergency] Fwd: Messaging Standards Meeting Report

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

Elysa -

You're right to be careful about attributing motive, of course... but 
I'll confess I'm at a loss to think of who might have made such 
claims on behalf of DM and EIC who wouldn't have known better.

Thanks!

- Art

At 2:12 PM -0600 3/2/05, Elysa Jones wrote:
>Dear Art,
>
>Agreed.  In no way has our TC changed our standardization process 
>and I thought I made that clear in the meeting.  We have just agreed 
>to accept a set of requirements from an outside source, i.e., the DM 
>program via the EIC.  This is not the only work of the TC but one 
>agreed to task. 
>
>Also agreed, the DM nor the EIC created CAP.  CAP was generated in 
>response to a need to standardize a method for issuing alert and 
>warning information with roots back to the 2000 publication you 
>cite.  We have not taken on the task of all data sharing among even 
>the emergency management community much less, the nation.  However, 
>let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.  CAP 1.0 is a 
>viable standard for the purpose it was developed as evidenced by the 
>many groups worldwide that are utilizing it for the purpose it was 
>intended.  To the extend the EM-TC can support the DM program (and 
>the widespread emergency management community) with further 
>standardization efforts, I believe it is within our charter. 
>
>This report is the reason I only provided a brief overview of the 
>meeting during our conference call and preferred to send the full 
>summary to the list.  It is interesting what actually gets 
>documented.  I don't believe it was a "a self-serving disregard for 
>accuracy" but an honest attempt to capture the large number of 
>issues that came out of two long days of meetings with people that 
>do not normally share domains.  There was not a draft generated for 
>review by the participants.  That may be a good suggestion for the 
>future meetings.
>
>Thank you for your comments.
>Elysa
>
>At 11:36 AM 3/2/2005, Art Botterell wrote:
>
>>Friends -
>>
>>For the record I want to challenge two inflated claims that appear 
>>in that meeting report:
>>
>>>DM approached OASIS and requested that OASIS change its 
>>>standardization process to meet DM's needs and OASIS agreed.
>>>
>>
>>OASIS has not changed its process in any way intended to meet DM's 
>>needs.  Nor has this TC departed from that process.  All this TC 
>>agreed to do was accept submissions from DM and the EIC as a basis 
>>for standard-making efforts, in exactly the same way it accepted 
>>the PPW submission of requirements and a draft for CAP two years 
>>earlier.
>>
>>>DM and the EIC created CAP because public safety practitioners 
>>>emphasized that they could not share information.
>>>
>>
>>Neither DM nor the EIC created CAP.  Neither group's involvement 
>>began until CAP was brought into the OASIS standards process, by 
>>which time it was already at version 0.7 and reflected two years' 
>>documented prior effort, including prototyping and field trials, by 
>>the CAP Working Group and the Partnership for Public Warning among 
>>others.  And even then, DM was only one member of this Technical 
>>Committee.
>>
>>Nor is information sharing among public safety practitioners the 
>>primary purpose of CAP.  From the beginning the goal of CAP has 
>>been to translate scientific research on the effectiveness of 
>>public warnings into a usable standard for the dissemination and 
>>coordination of such warnings.  (Specifically, CAP's origins and 
>>structure can be traced back to the recommendations of the 
>>"Effective Disaster Warnings" report issued by the National Science 
>>and Technology Council in November, 2000.) Information sharing 
>>among practitioners is the goal of EDXL, not CAP.
>>
>>These misrepresentations trouble me, not only because they 
>>disregard the selfless contributions of a number of people and 
>>groups over several years, but because they suggest a self-serving 
>>disregard for accuracy that puts the entire document in question.
>>
>>- Art
>>
>>