RE: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1

["Ham, Gary A" <hamg@BATTELLE.ORG>]

My question for Kon.  Are you suggesting lookups in the manner of the
GJXDM?  Or are you leaving the table out of the spec altogether.  For
me, at least, to understand the problem I need to look at you suggested
solution as a schema snippet.  Art's approach is OK by me, but so is the
GJXDM approach to lookups.  Art's approach has the benefit of
straightforward accountability.  The GJXDM approach has better
encapsulation, making maintainability and reuse more effective.  Is
yours a third approach? If, so what does it specifically look like?

Respectfully,

Gary A. Ham 
Senior Research Scientist
Battelle Memorial Institute
540-288-5611 (office)
703-869-6241 (cell)
"You would be surprised what you can accomplish when you do not care who
gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Embley [mailto:pembley@mstar.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 6:59 AM
To: 'Elysa Jones'; 'Kon Wilms'; 'Art Botterell'
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1


The GJXDM uses quite a few lookup tables.  The biggest problem we've had
is trying to get authoritative sources to take responsibility for them.
An example is the FBI and the NCIC code lookups.  Only recently have
they committed to take on this task.  Other examples are some FIPS, ISO
and USPS tables.  We reference them externally. 

Paul S. Embley
Practitioner Resource Group
G&H International Services, Inc.
502.695.7733 (office)
502.545.0127 (cell)
502.695.0055 (fax)
pembley@ghinternational.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 5:26 AM
To: Kon Wilms; Art Botterell
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1

Okay guys - truce!  Let's hear from some other implementors.  What about

it?  David Ellis, Gary Ham, Rob Torchon, Tom Merkle, Paul Embley,
Michelle 
Raymond, Walid Ramadan, Jeff Kyser, Sukumar and you folks as IEM as a 
minimum - what do you think???  Elysa

At 10:44 PM 3/7/2005, Kon Wilms wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 21:56 -0500, Art Botterell wrote:
> > At 2:31 PM -0800 3/7/05, Kon Wilms wrote:
> > >I've asked a number of times in this thread for clarification as to

> > >why such a method would not be a good idea - all I've received has 
> > >been
what
> > >seems like an unwillingness to listen.
> >
> > Please don't confuse not agreeing with not listening.  The TC isn't
>
>You don't have to agree, but you do have to give me a good answer why 
>you think it won't work and/or is a bad idea. I have yet to see even 
>one, even after I have listed both advantages and disadvantages to this

>approach. 'Things will not interoperate' doesn't qualify as a valid 
>answer (or excuse).
>
> > obliged to accept a change just because someone suggests it.  If you

> > want a change, it's up to you to persuade the TC that it's a good 
> > idea.
>
>This is right up there with accusing me of using this to push an 
>implementation issue to the standards level. What's up with this?
>
> > >However, with a lookup table in place people like Dave would be 
> > >able to make use of their CBRN category immediately without being 
> > >out of spec.
> >
> > We aren't trying to make it easy to add new categories... in fact, 
> > we're trying to make it hard.  Our goal is interoperability, which 
> > wouldn't be served by letting some systems adopt random categories 
> > that others won't understand.
>
>I'm constantly amazed at how the concept of lookup table usage is 
>equated to allowing people to insert random categories into their 
>messages and creating some sort of interop disaster. Please stop the 
>FUD.
>
> > CAP isn't meant to be everything to everyone... it's meant to be the

> > SAME thing to everyone.
>
>Same as above.
>
> > If Dave DIDN'T feel he needed to interoperate he could just make up 
> > his own XML format and not bother constraining himself to the CAP 
> > spec.  But the last thing we'd want would be messages floating 
> > around that claimed to be CAP, but actually were non-interoperable 
> > variants.
>
>Same as above.
>
>The theme here seems to be that of portraying the usage of a lookup 
>table to be something that would be a source of all manner of 'very bad

>things', none of which are based in fact.
>
>Please explain to me how a fixed lookup table for categories would 
>allow for random category insertion.
>
>I have to ask - are you intentionally muddying the water because you 
>don't like this proposal, or is there a solid technical reason for this

>being a bad approach to solving this problem?
>
>Cheers
>Kon
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-help@lists.oasis-open.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-help@lists.oasis-open.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-help@lists.oasis-open.org