RE: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

["Sylvia Webb" <swebb@gefeg.com>]

Hi Rex,

Although I haven't been able to be active in the TC, I continue to try to
keep up with it's work. This particular topic is one that I cannot keep
silent on since software that supports ISO 11179 and it's practical
implementation, ISO 15000-5 are what my company creates software to for and
where I spend most of my time in the standards arena.

Adding any NDR that supports ISO 11179 will not be a minor task. It isn't
something that can be done in a few months. Even with specialized tool
support it will take a dedicated team many hours of pains taking work.
Specifically adding the NIEM NDR may also produce a national solution
instead of a international solution.

I believe that there is an approach that will support multiple NDR including
the NIEM and support the needs of the international community. Essentially,
it is proceeding with the RIM work that I believe you have already started
and incorporating ISO 15000-5 which includes support for ISO 11179-4. 

Simply adding the NIEM NDR will not achieve support for the wide variety of
requirements that the OASIS community will need. The NIEM NDR is a schema
representation of a data model. In order to support the needs of an
international community, you need a syntax neutral representation of the NDR
first. ISO 15000-5 is a syntax neutral representation of 11179.
Additionally, when the GJXDM was in development, many of the data
requirements were submitted to UN/CEFACT and subsequently to ISO for
inclusion in the current version of 15000-5. From the syntax neutral
representation, you can have any number of NDR to meet specific
requirements. I am working with various US Government agencies on various
ISO 15000-5 projects. 

Whether we like it or not, ISO 15000-5 and 11179 are being specified in
multiple governments RFPs now in the US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and
Asia. In the past month I have attended meetings in New Delhi and Sydney
where some of this standards development work is being done by various
government bodies as well as private industries. Sooner rather than later,
there will be an interest in using these standards for EM TC messages. When
to bite the bullet, what approach to use, and how to move forward at the
same time to prevent a plethora of proprietary vendor and in-house developed
solutions are the real questions that need to be discussed and answered. 

I believe this requires a lot more discussion and consideration of the
various approaches and results that one approach over another will produce.
I hope that I can be available to participate in those discussions.

Sylvia Webb 
GEFEG US 
310-370-3410 - Voice
310-370-5614 - Fax 
www.gefeg.com -  Internet 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:56 AM
To: Tim Grapes; 'Elysa Jones'; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [emergency] HAVE draft comment posted

Hi Tim,

I posed my initial response earlier, but I wanted to specifically address
where in the process this should be taken up wrt HAVE.

My own feeling (subjective) is that it should be held back until a
subsequent version, e.g. v1.1. 
or 2.0 because I suspect it will meet the criterion that a substantive
change requiring a new 60-day public review has a threshold or trigger
whereby a substantive change is one that "breaks" existing applications.

Objectively, we literally can't afford to hold this up, or vendors will
produce their own menagerie of proprietary solutions. This is what happened
for the OASIS SOA Reference Model TC (and current Reference Architecture
SC). It has endured and continues to face the proliferation of ESBs and "SOA
Fabrics"  jockeying for the inside track in the marketplace while we
carefully crafted the Reference Model and continue to work on the Reference
Architecture. 
However, because both the model and architecture are largely abstract, much
like we can make the NDR we can, I believe, absorb ESBs and Fabrics, albeit
with a very flexible shoe horn.

So while the comparison is not precise, the effect that ESB vendors have
been running away with the marketplace still applies.

So we will have to attempt to incorporate NDR, crafting it as a
non-breaking, non normative "best practice" in an appendix during and
immediately after the 60-day review IF we have the time--which is to say, IF
we are not swamped with industry comments. We will also need to include the
advice that we expect to incorporate a general-purpose NDR methodology in
the next version of HAVE and EDXL_DE along with all subsequent members of
the EDXL family.

We may be able to do this because what we are doing is establishing a
methodology for NDR, not a controlled vocabulary in itself. If NIEM is
looking for a the greater restriction of its own controlled vocabulary,
which is what we feared early on in Mike Daconta's initial statements, we
would have a greater challenge, and I would have to take the position that
we are required to ensure international applicability over any specific
national systems.

Either way, its a tough pill that it is better to take now than postpone
because it is not going to taste any better, and likely to ferment into much
worse, if we wait.

Cheers,
Rex

At 2:57 PM -0500 11/1/06, Tim Grapes wrote:
>All,
>
>I and others on and off the OASIS EM-TC would like to post a 
>recommendation that the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) 
>Naming and Design Rules (NDR) be adopted and applied to the HAVE 
>committee draft.  My understanding is that, although a consistent 
>convention was used to name the elements, no formal NDR has been 
>followed for HAVE or for Resource Messaging (RM).
>
>Please note that not adopting the NDR does not prevent use of NIEM to 
>develop exchanges using EDXL standards; however, the difficulty for 
>practitioners may be increased otherwise.  I realize that this feels 
>Federal government-driven, but I don't see a down-side since the 
>particular semantics applied should not negatively impact the 
>International community.
>
>Benefits:
>.         Use HAVE as the starting point to 
>begin applying a published and consistent naming convention across the 
>EDXL standards
>.         Promote reuse and facilitate simpler 
>and more seamless use of NIEM for the
>development of IEPD's and implementation of exchanges using the EDXL 
>standards.
>.         Provide a straight-forward avenue and 
>mechanism for state and local organizations to comply with grants 
>language which specifies NIEM and EDXL
>
>We do not feel that the specification should be held up; HAVE should 
>proceed into the 60-day comment period with this and other comments 
>that have been posted.  If adopted by the TC, recommend that the NIEM 
>NDR be adopted for the draft Resource Messaging and subsequent 
>standards, and possibly to the Distribution Element when a successive 
>version is put forth.
>
>I welcome any comments or feedback.  I will be on the call Thursday at 
>4:45.  Because HAVE is pending committee vote, I don't know where this 
>comment should be formally posted.  Please advise and I will ensure 
>that gets done.
>
>Sincerely,
>Tim Grapes
>Evolution Technologies, Inc.
>Office:  (703) 654-6075
>Mobile:  (703) 304-4829
><mailto:tgrapes@evotecinc.com>tgrapes@evotecinc.com
>
>
>From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:18 AM
>To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [emergency] Call for quorum - Thurs 11/2 4:45PM EST
>
>Dear EM-TC Members,
>
>We did not have a quorum for our meeting yesterday and we would like to 
>get the HAVE moved forward to public comment, as well as review/approve 
>the meeting notes for the past few meetings.  We had our meeting which 
>is summarized in the notes that will be uploaded for review but without 
>a quorum, we were not able to do any business.  We will plan to have a 
>short meeting on Thursday just before the Msg/Not meeting on Resource 
>Thursday evening at 4:45PM EST.  The EM-TC part of the meeting should 
>only last 15 minutes if everyone can be prepared to vote on HAVE.  If 
>you have any issues on the draft as it is posted or corrections to the 
>meeting notes for the Sept and Oct meetings, please post them to the 
>list as soon as possible.
>
>Thanks! 
>Elysa Jones, Chair
>OASIS EM-TC
>Engineering Program Manager
>Warning Systems, Inc.
>
>PS - The EIC meeting will be today Nov 1.  You can dial in to 
>800-320-4330 pin # 327547
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.20/508 - Release Date: 
>10/31/2006
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.22/512 - Release Date: 
>11/1/2006
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:NIEM_NDR-0.3.pdf (PDF /<IC>) 
>(0019F2A1)


--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309