[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1
Maybe I misunderstand this, Tom, but it seems to be a choice between a standard that won't be implemented ubiquitously and rules that can't be enforced. It is usually a bad idea to write requirements that can't be enforced because of the limited reach of the authority that sanctions the standard. If my understanding of your point is wrong, please dismiss what follows here. It can be a good idea to present the use scenarios. I think what happens is that the easily shared portions of CAP will be shared and that those parts which are variant by jurisdiction have to evolve and/or converge according to local implementations. For that reason, it is better to isolate them to enable that process to occur rather than sink the standard. That this introduces implementation complexity is a given. When the CALS program attempted to legislate MIL 28001 across the tri-services, it failed pretty miserably because the size and depth of that standard was such that it could not cost effectively or politically be enforced. Some parts did succeed and mostly where native, that is, the parts based on MIL-38784, which had been used by the US Army in particular for many years. Competing efforts and changes in the technology (eg, HTML and the migration to non-print-based systems) altered the environment. Then PDF came along and swept most of the print-based systems aside, and the capability to drive SGML 28001 to PDF (a print driver technology) for firm-fixed formats emerged. This works but it was not the original plan. For CAP to be successful, it has to be adaptible in those parts that are undergoing change for whatever reason where that reason is beyond the control of this working group and even DHS. At the global scale, one needs simulations to ensure the critical real time aspects of the system work as envisioned. At the local scale, feedback and lessons learned have to be incorporated in a timely fashion. Again, unless I misunderstand, this isn't an issue of change management here, but at the locus of the liaison standards. These cannot be controlled from here so it seems better to isolate them from the main CAP spec, measure results, and act accordingly. This is why most standards efforts don't end until the technology itself is obsoleted. len From: Tom Merkle [mailto:TMerkle@capwin.org] I completely agree with Rex. We are at a point where we can no longer assume "black box" standards will support CAP messages as those standards continue to evolve. I am concerned that the issue of change management visibility is non-existent with any other standards that interact with CAP. A good example of that is when W3C moved to XML 2.0, while CAP is XML 1.0 based. Had the W3C change not been backyard compatible it could have created quite a mess, and not just for CAP but the GJXDD, IEEE 1512, et al. as well. Changes made to any of the "GJXDM-proxy/imported standards/code lists" may produce an unexpected reaction that could severely limit system performance.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]