OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments

Yes, I think this is a key point... the EM TC is not a closed  
system.  Formalization is just one stage in a spiral development  
process.  No matter how clever we try to be, we're bound to learn  
things from experience.  And we want to stay open to that, which  
means not taking any of our notions too seriously until they've been  
proven in practice.

I also think Patti points out an important consideration as regards  
dependencies.  Personally I've always been a bit "iffy" on whether  
the DE should be an encapsulating structure (a "wrapper") or a  
standardized included structure (an "element") for use within various  
functional message types.  Or maybe both.

This is one of those things I don't think we're really in a position  
to judge yet, since it depends on network architectures and  
application frameworks that are themselves still evolving.  As usual,  
my personal preference would be to keep our options as open as  
possible for as long as possible.

That does leave a lot of wiggle room within the specs, which in turn  
means that some details may need to be negotiated as usage profiles  
among the implementers and then formalized once "best practice"  
becomes clear... but I think that's probably better than locking  
ourselves in prematurely to unproven assumptions.

Generally speaking, I think every creative act requires a certain  
quota of mistakes, and thus the faster we can make and recognize  
mistakes, the quicker we'll get to a quality product.  Trying never  
to make any mistakes is, in my experience, the one sure way to stifle  
creativity.  If we can just avoid any truly fundamental mistakes on  
the first go-round, that's probably a good job of work.

- Art

On Nov 4, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Ham, Gary A wrote:

> Perfection is the enemy of "good enough."  Lets just make sure that  
> it is truly good enough.
> 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
> From: Aymond, Patti [mailto:Patti.Aymond@ieminc.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 10:38 AM
> To: Renato Iannella; Emergency_Mgt_TC TC
> Subject: RE: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments
> Renata brings up a good point that we need to consider. At the face- 
> to-face, we learned that the premier requirement for the RM is that  
> the RM be embedded in a DE because it is dependent on some of the  
> DE information. What happens when payloads are carved up and  
> forwarded to different recipients? The information from the DE is  
> lost.
> I suggest that all of the standards (CAP, DE, RM, ...) be  
> autonomous - fully containing all of the information that it needs  
> even if it means having redundant information in the DE and the  
> payloads. The DE should be sufficiently robust to handle any type  
> of payload, CAP should be a complete A&N message, and a RM message  
> should contain all of the information needed to manage resource  
> procurement, stockpiling, prepositioning, deployment, tracking, and  
> disposition.
> As far as the speed of progress. I agree that it would be great to  
> take our time and produce a standard that is "right", but given the  
> gaping hole in EM capability and the devastating consequences it  
> can have, I think we're right in taking the heuristic approach. We  
> may not produce an optimal solution, but it will be good enough to  
> be useful, and with each iteration, we will get closer to the  
> "right" standard.
> O.K. I'll step down off of my soapbox now...
> Patti
> From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au]
> Sent: Thu 11/3/2005 8:52 PM
> To: Emergency_Mgt_TC TC
> Subject: Re: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments
> On 4 Nov 2005, at 03:52, Elysa Jones wrote:
> > 1.  Infrastructure SC - The DE has now completed the comment period
> > and we reviewed an overview of the comments received.  Mary
> > provided a URL to the comment list.  Art is putting together the
> > spread sheet with all comments for consideration.  As Mary stated
> > on the call, for the EDXL DE 1.0 to be voted on this calendar year,
> > it will have to be approved by the TC to go forward no later than
> > Nov 7.  I would like for the IF-SC to work diligently over the next
> > few days to provide a recommendation to the TC as to the dispense
> > of these comments.  I will call a special meeting of the TC on
> > Tuesday Nov 7 from 11-12 EST for the IF-SC to make their
> > recommendations.  Provided we have a quorum and can agree to the IF-
> > SC dispense, we could vote at that meeting to go forward with a  
> ballot
> My concern is that we seem to be pushing thru EDXL-DE when we have no
> experience on
> how (or if) the work we now commence on EDXL-RM will impact on it.
> This was the case for CAP and EDXL - changes proposed in EDXL were
> rejected because
> CAP did things in certain ways.
> I am concerned the same will now happen with EDXL-RM - since its
> dependency on EDXL-DE is high.
> I suggest the EDXL-DE stay at committee draft for a longer period
> until we are more clear
> on the technical integration with EDXL-RM. This would be the best
> outcome for the community we represent.
> > 2.  Messaging SC - Now that the requirements for Resource has been
> > through the review, I would like to see the messaging SC take over
> > that work.
> Where are these Requirements? Were these discussed at the last f2f?
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
> National ICT Australia (NICTA)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----
> 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.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> http://www.ieminc.com/e_mail_confidentiality_notice.html

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]