[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:11:28 -0800
To: "David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Subject: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
Hi David,
I took an action item in today's Emergency Management TC Meeting to respond to your two messages. We did not have a quorum, but we can vote in our next meeting after the Second 60-Day Public Review of EDXL-HAVE has expired to accept this response as a valid resolution to the issue presented by your Public Comment copied below.
There are two responses to this:
1. We were not tasked with scoping our work to address modern SOA and B2B best practices; but,
2. If this were not a specification which is finishing its 2nd 60-Day Public Review, and if critical demand for this specification had not been repeatedly stressed upon us, (by HITSP among others) we would consider accepting your issues.
So, for now we choose to defer. However EDXL-Resource Messaging (EDXL-RM) actually provides the Message Exchange Patterns you mention. It is a couple of months behind EDXL-HAVE.
We will certainly consider adding such considerations in the next version of EDXL-HAVE, but, in our opinion, the need for it is too great to delay it based on these considerations.
That said, since I happen to be a member of the OASIS SOA Reference Model TC, I can appreciate your concern, but I don't think this is nearly as much of an encumbrance as you suggest.
We would welcome your assistance in building sample CAM templates to show how your suggestions can be done with the existing specification.
The EDXL-Resource Messaging (EDXL-RM) Specification will soon be ready its 2nd 60-Day Public Review. EDXL-RM is based on the overall Resource Message Type, with 16 specific Message Types.
These include a number of Requests and Responses, as well as Reports which may become its own specification with EDXL-HAVE as a model.
I am editing the current version of EDXL-RM 1.0 which we will, hopefully, finish at our upcoming workgroup face-to-face meetings January 8,9,10 in Washington, D.C.
EDXL-DE 1.0 handles the Routing/Distribution of Emergency Messages and is being implemented by the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) and we are using what we learn in that effort to provide some of the requirements for EDXL-DE 1.1.
The whole EDXL Family has at least two and maybe three more specifications working their way through the practitioner-SME group process that leads up to submitting it to the TC for the TC to decide on accepting or not.
We are also planning an EDXL-Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM) which will formalize the various kinds of messages and mechanisms in the whole family at a more abstract level than the specifications. It is preliminarily planned to include an RDF Schema and an OWL-DL representation in addition to an XML Schema.
Cheers,
Rex Brooks
Subject: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
* From: "David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>
* To: emergency-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
* Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:40:27 -0700
Having looked at your XSD - I'm just not seeing the connection here to modern SOA and B2B best practices.
Frankly - if I were a hospital adminstrator - I'd have a real hard time understanding how I'd adopt this - and build it into emergency dashboarding.
The problem is that this is an "all or nothing" information exchange model - that seems at odds with a service based or B2B collaborative partner model.
In the B2B model - I'd want to send out hourly bulletins on status changes - and hence use lean-and-mean messages with just essentials that new data requires.
In a SOA service model - I'd expect to do a query / response exchange - where I'd send out requests to my group of partners (actually this is a nice B2B / ebXML shared routing example too - rather than point-to-point SOAP webservices).
So what we're missing is that query message. This could be based off the xsd you have - simply put a message_type on there - and then include the sections you want status on as empty tags - for a simple first cut at this.
You may want to get more sophisticated and include specific service empty tags below that parent.
The responding systems would then "fill-in" those empty tags - as responding information.
Again - you can easily build CAM templates for this interaction model - but you will need to change your schema to make things optional - and then provide the CAM template for the particular interchange context to make clear the exact content model(s).
Thanks, DW
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
--
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]