Subject: Re: [emergency] NOAA Undermining International Standards?
On Jun 1, 2006, at 6/1/06 6:13 PM, Renato Iannella wrote: > Art - not that I am defending NOAA - but the <instruction> element > is optional in CAP 1.1 > so they still are creating valid XML CAP messages? (from a pure > technical point-of-view). They aren't creating the messages... at least, that's not their purpose. The ostensible purpose of HazCollect is to gather alerts from non-weather agencies and then push them out through NOAA's various weather radio transmitters, weather wire and other dissemination methods. Which means they're a consumer of CAP messages, and potentially a relay to other delivery systems, but not a producer. So the question is whether it's appropriate for a consumer of CAP messages to arbitrarily decide to ignore certain legal CAP elements that it could technically use. (And then to use that restriction as an excuse for forcing users to adopt a particular tool for CAP generation.) > If, however, you are saying that the <instruction> element plays a > significant role in CAP, > then perhaps it should have been mandatory? (and with a fixed vocab) Hindsight being 20-20, you may be right about the first bit. As for the other bit, trying to devise a fixed vocabulary that can deal with the full range of emergencies, foreseen and unforeseen, strikes me as an ambitious project... but you're welcome to take a stab at it... ;-) - Art