OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [emergency] Fwd: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases /implementation models


Title: RE: [emergency] Fwd: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / i
Thanks Tim,

I believe we're caught up at this point and the fact that the issues were deferred is understood. I'm sure David also understands that CAM provides a good way to do as you suggest. We arranged to have a collaborative (i.e. AdobeConnect shared webinar) during the Feb. 7 Adoption SC meeting.

Just for everyone's benefit, what Tim describes was incorporated into the EDXL-RM spec, and will be included in the EDXL Reference Information Model as major EDXL principle.



Cheers,
Rex

At 4:09 PM -0500 1/22/08, Timothy Grapes wrote:
Attached also was my 2-cents on the topic.  Rex had agreed with the content but I don't believe this was used or forwarded to David.
Tim
-----------
Rex et al,
 
I left David off this response to first determine whether the TC agrees with my comment.  I have also heard similar comments regarding the size of the standards (payload size) discussed referencing the term "microformats".  I tend to use the term "profiles" here.
 
Setting aside David's comment regarding a query message, I believe a need for smaller "lean and mean" messages can be accommodated in accordance with the present HAVE standard architecture through implementation of profiles.
HAVE contains only a handful of mandatory elements, allowing implementers to create "profiles" to suit their needs.  By profiles I mean subsets of the overall "reference schema" built in accordance with all requirements of the specification.  Put another way these are smaller "constraint" schemas built off of the overall standard "reference schema".  A profile can be any size - very small if needed to meet a particular exchange purpose.
 
In the case of RM I realize the TC choose to explicitly define several of these "profiles" (individual RM message types) within the spec.  But we'll never predict all possible needs, and the current standards do not preclude implementations from developing their own profiles/constraint schemas - as long as they adhere to the core standard definitions and rules.
 
Thanks,
 
Tim
----------------
Thanks,
 
Tim
 
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:30 AM
To: ejones@warningsystems.com; sukumar_dwarkanath@sra.com; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] Fwd: EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
 
Hi Elysa, Sukumar, TC
 
Here is the message I sent to David Webber with regard to the issues he raised for which I took an action item to draft a response.
 
Cheers,
Rex
 
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
 
 
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670

From: "Timothy Grapes" <tgrapes@evotecinc.com>
To: "'Rex Brooks'" <rexb@starbourne.com>
Cc: "'Elysa Jones'" <ejones@warningsystems.com>
Subject: FW: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:28:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D2_01C85D11.26314710"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acg8KbnihfK3bezKT1e4vcuPfRppAQABoTzwAGBpotAFGngDsA==
Content-language: en-us
Rex,
FYI below is my input to his question.
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Grapes [mailto:tgrapes@evotecinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:00 PM
To: 'rexbroo@gmail.com'
Subject: FW: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
See below.
Thanks,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Grapes [mailto:tgrapes@evotecinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:13 PM
To: 'Rex Brooks'
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation models
Rex et al,
I left David off this response to first determine whether the TC agrees with
my comment.  I have also heard similar comments regarding the size of the
standards (payload size) discussed referencing the term "microformats".  I
tend to use the term "profiles" here.
Setting aside David's comment regarding a query message, I believe a need
for smaller "lean and mean" messages can be accommodated in accordance with
the present HAVE standard architecture through implementation of profiles.
HAVE contains only a handful of mandatory elements, allowing implementers to
create "profiles" to suit their needs.  By profiles I mean subsets of the
overall "reference schema" built in accordance with all requirements of the
specification.  Put another way these are smaller "constraint" schemas built
off of the overall standard "reference schema".  A profile can be any size -
very small if needed to meet a particular exchange purpose. 
In the case of RM I realize the TC choose to explicitly define several of
these "profiles" (individual RM message types) within the spec.  But we'll
never predict all possible needs, and the current standards do not preclude
implementations from developing their own profiles/constraint schemas - as
long as they adhere to the core standard definitions and rules.
Thanks,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:11 PM
To: David RR Webber (XML)
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE and SOA / B2B use cases / implementation
models
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


-- 
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]