[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Illogical Structure?
Folks - I'm concerned that we might be constructing next-generation stovepipes into our subcommittee/working-group structure. Basically, I think, all info systems comprise only five basic types of nodes: * Sensors, in the broad sense, observe the real world and represents events and conditions there by outputting data according to some more- or-less specified model. (In this sense a human input tool... a keyboard or a mouse, for example... can be viewed as a class of sensor.) * Actuators ingest data inputs and effect some change in the "real" environment. These can include displays, alarms, switches, valves... anything that transforms data into a physical manifestation. * Gateways perform rule-based transformations between data formats. * Processors are akin to gateways, in that they have data inputs and data outputs, but the transformations they perform are more complex, involving additional factors such as other concurrent data inputs, cumulative calculations of state, historical/statistical representations of patterns and trends in various dimensions (temporal and geospatial being the most common in emergency applications) as well as simple input-triggered rules. * Registers (aka databases) accumulate and retain data in some persistent form, either by factoring new data into an ongoing calculation of system state or by journaling individual data arrivals in some form of list, or sometimes both. Every application and function involves many if not all of these components, and most of those components will be either pre-existing or otherwise invariant. Our work in data standards has more to do with the conversations between these nodes than with the nodes themselves, so organizing ourselves by node-type seems maybe a bit out of tune with our mission. I'd like to suggest that we define our basic working groups around particular projects, with additional ad-hoc teams to address particular technical or operational questions that require in-depth research or special expertise. That would leave it up to the TC as a whole to look after issues of consistency and coherence in our work products, which seems appropriate to me. Concrete examples of this sort of structure would be an EDXL DE working group for the project-oriented team, and our existing GIS group as a particularly durable example of the special-issue type. If there are, in fact, issues specific to sensor systems in some narrow definition, that could certainly be addressed by a temporary, goal-oriented workgroup. But I don't think we want to conflate sensor issues with workflow issues... lots of applications have their own inherent workflows and there's no guarantee that a sensor- oriented team could achieve a global view of that very broad topic. (From a bench in front of SFO, loving the low humidity...) - Art On Jul 15, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Elysa Jones wrote: > Most of what we do with our EM standards work involves the movement > of information in response to a detected event - be that a visual > or otherwise "sensed" event. Much of the discussion about > "systems" was actually more about work flow and dissemination of > information during an incident. We may should revisit the terms we > use so as not to be misunderstood - say sensors and work flow? We > deemed it important to designate sensors separately due to the work > that is developing in the labs and elsewhere that EM standards are > needed. These groups are looking to the TC for guidance and having > a special place they can discuss their specific needs would be > helpful. Comments? Elysa > > At 11:06 AM 7/15/2005, Kon Wilms wrote: > >> I guess that proves my point. >> >> Cheers >> Kon >> >> On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 06:58 -0400, Vandame, Richard wrote: >> > Non-sensers, perhaps. >> > >> > Rich >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Kon Wilms [mailto:kon@datacast.biz] >> > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 5:20 PM >> > To: Rex Brooks; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >> > Subject: [emergency] Illogical Naming was: Re: [emergency] >> Sensors and >> > Systems Charter Starting Point >> > >> > I have to say that I still do not see the logic behind the >> naming of >> > these focus groups. >> > >> > A sensor network is a system (and may comprise multiple >> systems), for >> > example. What category do systems that do not make use of >> sensors fall >> > under? >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your >> TCs in OASIS >> at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/ >> my_workgroups.php >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs > in OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]