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] RE: Question on EDXL-DE schema

Rex and others,

Yes we did vote on the spec as indicated in the posted draft meeting 
notes.  The documentation was presented to OASIS for submittal.  I provided 
the documents just as we reviewed them in that meeting.  There were no 
corrections that came in after the call.  However, OASIS came back and 
requested a "red-lined" version of the changes.  As you know, we reviewed a 
document without red lines but with a supplemental document that identified 
each and every change.  This is apparently not the approved submittal 
format for a 15-day review so, Patti is working to get the document in that 

I am glad this validation issue came up before the actual submittal and it 
needs to be worked out before the document is posted.  Depending on the 
change(s) necessary, we may also have to vote on it again.  As we have 
agreed in the TC, it is more important to get it right than get it out 
there with errors.  We will have our regular full TC meeting on Tuesday 
1/24 and will address any remaining issues.  Also, OASIS has schema experts 
that we can query about this issue if it is warranted.


At 04:03 PM 1/20/2006, Rex Brooks wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>Can someone clarify the status of the spec at this point? I had to leave a 
>bit before the end of the last TC meeting, and I thought we were pretty 
>much done. That would make this thread moot. Is that incorrect?
>I tried to trace the thread back to get clarification that way, but I got 
>confused. I think that we may have had a case of one or another of the 
>comments being based on an incorrect "current" version. I would really 
>like to know where we stand at this point.
>At 6:35 PM -0700 1/19/06, Ellis, David wrote:
>>Art, Renato
>>At this point the SSIWG can define prototype location schema for sensor 
>>content objects and evaluate them be assigning these elements a "testing" 
>>namespace.  This will allow continued exploration of needed functionallity.
>>Once experiments have validated best elements structure (e.g.DoD and DNDO 
>>experiments), the SSIWG could recommend either addition of needed 
>>elements via EDXL-SS using the namespace=##other elements in current 
>>EDXL-DE or propose additions of content object elements for future 
>>versions of EDXL-DE.
>>David E. Ellis
>>Information Management Architect
>>(505) 844-6697
>>From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com]
>>Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 5:30 PM
>>To: Renato Iannella
>>Cc: Emergency_Mgt_TC TC; Mark Carlson - Conneva, Inc.
>>Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: Question on EDXL-DE schema
>>I had occasion to revisit the notes on digital signatures and encryption 
>>in the CAP 1.1 spec... sections and respectively.  This 
>>was the language contributed by Bob Wyman, and now that I'm getting 
>>around to addressing some of those issues, it seems workable, concise and 
>>unambiguous.  Maybe it would give us some guidance on how to express what 
>>we're trying to do here.
>>Meanwhile, I understand that several folks are playing with experimental 
>>extensions that they may or may not propose for ratification 
>>later.  Might it make sense to create two versions of the schema... a 
>>strict one to go in the spec, and an "experimentors' edition" (with the 
>>"##anys") in an application note or whatever?
>>That way maybe we could encourage experimentation without diluting the 
>>spec itself.
>>- Art
>>On Jan 19, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Renato Iannella wrote:
>>>  On 20 Jan 2006, at 04:08, Ellis, David wrote:
>>>>  The ##other is an acceptable replacement for the ##any value  located 
>>>> in the any element following the xsd:choice element.  The  intent of 
>>>> this element in the EDXL-DE schema is to provide a  mechanism for 
>>>> signing our contentObjects.  The signing process  (refer to 
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/>http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/) 
>>>>   uses a different  namespace than EDXL-DE.
>>>  My point has always been that if this is the *intent* of the  element, 
>>> then that is what we need to clearly
>>>  indicate in the spec. It is used for digital signatures - full  stop. 
>>> If we start to say that the *same* element can be use 
>>> for  'experimental extensions' then we will have problems in the 
>>> future  (guaranteed !)
>>>  The best option to make this explicit is to reference the W3C 
>>> XML  Digital Signature namespace.
>>>  All that is needed is to include the DigSig namespace at the top 
>>> of  the EDXL Schema:
>>>  and in the ContentObjectType, put a reference to the DigSig  Signature 
>>> element:
>>>    <xsd:element ref="ds:Signature" minOccurs="0"/>
>>>  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:
>>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
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-849-2309
>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

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