[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Proposal to extend the EDXL TargetArea to allow more flexible targeting/filtering/content routing
On 31 May 2005, at 06:18, Art Botterell wrote: > My impression is that this proposed change, well-intentioned though it > surely is, would be both unnecessary and harmful. Art - you have over-interpreted my posting. My intent was to provide more insights in the use-case and requirements for EDXL. As it stands today, the EDXL draft is not clear on the purpose - for example (on page 1) the <targetArea> is only described as being the "target area for message delivery". The definition for <recipientAddress> (page 3) includes "individual" and is not clear if this covers a group of people or a device/service. > Unnecessary because it really just duplicates the existing <keyword> > structure under a different name within the <targetArea> block. No. I assumed nothing about where elements should appear. > And harmful because it would sanction the use of system-specific > (i.e., not universally understood) codes as aliases for geospatial > descriptions. No, these were just "use case" examples. I fully support use of international standard codes. > I'm afraid this proposal is based on a misunderstanding of > <targetArea> as the only part of the EDXL Distribution Element (DE) > that describes the target audience. That's simply not the case. That is not true. I fully understand the scope of the <targetArea> element, and I did not even propose any changes to this. > The suggestion that the existence of intermediate routing devices > somehow requires the proposed change also seems misguided. The whole > purpose of the DE is to allow senders to describe where they want the > enclosed content to go without needing to specify how each particular > transport system will route it, which is something they may not know > and may not even be permitted to know (e.g., within secure networks.) True, and nothing in my posting treats "intermediate routing devices" differently. > As an alternative, in the interests of avoiding unnecessary > duplication and not diverging from geospatial standards, I'd like to > propose that <recipientAddress> be relabeled "<explicitAddress>" in > order to clarify that it can refer to any recipient device, whether > it's an end-point or a relay (since as noted above, the sender may not > always know, or need to know, which it is)... and also that we > consider whether <explicitAddress> should have a domain/value > substructure consistent with <keyword>, <recipientRole> and > <senderRole>, in order to deconflict addresses from various systems. What about <targetAddress> to mirror <targetArea> (and perhaps even <targetKeyword>) > All this is in pursuit of the rule of parsimony, aka the "KISS* > Principal." It would be easy to address each individual use-case by > tossing more features into the spec, but that's the road toward > incoherence and bloat. Our first question should always be "is there > a way to solve this within the existing structures?" In this case the > answer is "yes." I think this is the wrong approach. We should have *started* with the use cases and requirements, then develop the semantic and technical solution. The current situation is one where we have an "existing structures" and we are trying to work out if it meets requirements that we have not now articulating. BTW, terms like "unnecessary", "harmful", "misguided" are very powerful and should be used with care ;-) Cheers... Dr Renato Iannella Project Leader, NICTA, Brisbane, QLD, AUSTRALIA P: +61 7 3000 0484 F: +61 7 3000 0480 M: +61 4 1313 2206 E: firstname.lastname@example.org W: http://nicta.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy, use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. This notice should not be removed.