RE: [emergency] RE: Sample email to interestedpartiesWRTgeoenhancements to CAP

["Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@oss.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Art Botterell [mailto:ABott@so.cccounty.us] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 03:16
> To: rlake@galdosinc.com; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; 
> sandro@oss.com
> Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: Sample email to 
> interestedpartiesWRTgeoenhancements to CAP
> 
> Ron lake wrote:
> >Broad adoption (possibly with flexibility to support local 
> situations) is a major goal of a **standard**.  Increased 
> interoperability in a local context or in a particular 
> community is the main goal of a **profile**. 
> 
> Again, Ron, I think we need to bear in mind why we're here.  
> Standards aren't an end in themselves.  Interoperability is 
> the purpose of CAP; not just locally, but globally.
> 
> And again I beg everyone to familiarize themselves with the 
> requirements set forth in the current CAP spec.


Art,

Let me reword a little what I wrote earlier.  Perhaps it was not clear
enough.

Interoperability is an extremely important objective of people using
standards in most domains (not only in the emergency management domain!).
But that does not imply that the best way of structuring a standard is as a
single standard document that tries to ensure full interoperability among
all implementations by completely avoiding options.  In many cases, a better
way of structuring a standard is by developing a base standard plus one or
more profiles (or by developing a base standard in one organization and by
encouraging other organizations to develop profiles according to their
specific requirements).  The base standard would ensure a basic level of
interoperability and the profile would increase interoperability by
restricting the available options to those that are strictly necessary in a
particular community or set of use cases.  This allows you to achieve a
broader set of goals (one of which is full interoperability).

Alessandro

 
> - Art
>