RE: [emergency] FW: Suggestion: Add incidentKeyword to contentObject

["Aymond, Patti" <Patti.Aymond@iem.com>]

Mark,

 

The committee discussed this at length when we were together in NO last May. The decision was made at that time to put that type of routing information as a valuelistURN/valueList pair in the keyword field.

 

Patti

---

From: Mark Carlson - Conneva, Inc. [mailto:conneva@gmail.com]
Sent: Sat 1/28/2006 4:17 PM
To: Ellis, David; Aymond, Patti
Subject: Re: [emergency] FW: Suggestion: Add incidentKeyword to contentObject

David,

I am not able to post messages to the group so will just reply to you and Patti. 

My proposal was to add an incidentKeyword with valueListURN/valueList pair that would be used to classify the incident, not to use the valueListURN/valueList pair to identify the incident.  If it makes sense to have incidentID and incidentDescription, then adding a way to classify the incident also makes sense and adds value.  I am working on a resourcing application in which different business logic / routing rules will apply based on incident type.  Sure, I can design a contentObject payload that contains incidentID, desription and keyword information, but as the ID and description are already present in the DE, that is counter-intuitive.  I'm not convinced incident fields belong in the DE, but if they do, then a way to categorize the incident seems necessary.

Regards,

Mark Carlson

On 1/28/06, Ellis, David <dellis@sandia.gov> wrote:

As you can see, the green IncidentID and incidentDescription have not functionality in either explicit of Pub/Sub distribution.  In fact, if we could predict incidents in advance and add them to a valueListURN/value pair for determining distribution during incidents, the TC should go to Las Vegas and win enough money to retire

IEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR NOTICE:
http://www.ieminc.com/e_mail_confidentiality_notice.html