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] Use Case

We will probably end up just saying that the conformance section 
requirements are sufficient without giving any other criteria.

For me, the issue is not conformance, it is "how much" of the RM spec 
do we want to ask producers to implement in order to make a 
"Statement of Use? However much of the spec is implemented, it needs 
to satisfy the conformance requirements. The key concept in the RM 
conformance section is in Level 2 where "it" refers to an EDXL-RM 

b)   it produces a conforming Level-2 EDXL-RM Message when such a 
message is expected.

What we haven't decided is what "expected" means. It can be one of 
our specific Message Types, Level 1 conformance, Level 2 conformance 
or all of them.

I'm not going to dig in my heels on this. Getting the spec approved 
trumps my desire to ensure that the messages for a minimum resource 
lifecycle is implemented. My concern is that a producer could confuse 
the minimum requirement for a "Statement of Use" with a 
TC-recommended practice.


At 5:03 PM -0400 4/17/08, Dwarkanath, Sukumar wrote:
>Elysa et al
>We did nail down a position for HAVE - the Statement of Use will be 
>based on the conformance section in the Standard. For HAVE, we have 
>defined the conformance targets and provided a definition of a 
>'conformance target'
>I am not sure why we are revisiting this issue - the below positions 
>seem to be specific to RM, and if so, it should dealt in the 
>conformance section for RM. I will let the MSG SC members weigh in 
>on this - but, I am sure they have discussed this to some extent. I 
>am not in favor of overloading the statement of use.
>From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:30 AM
>To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [emergency] Use Case
>TC Members,
>We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on what constitutes a 
>"Use case" in our Standards.  Most of you have been aware of this 
>topic but we have not nailed down a position.  We must do this 
>before we can make the big push to get use cases for HAVE and RM. 
>This topic came up during the EIC meeting yesterday.  There are 
>several EIC members that know of companies that may want to be the 
>first or one of the first to advertise such a use case.  We need to 
>give them specific wording on what constitutes this "use".  OASIS 
>requires the statement to be in agreement with the conformance 
>clause of the specification.  We as a TC can cause this to be more 
>or less stringent and there are schools of thought on both. 
>Please review the two positions on the matter identified below and 
>respond to the list on your preference.  Although this does not 
>require a formal vote of the TC, I want to make sure we have a good 
>understanding and consensus on how we proceed.
>Position 1:
>Comply with the full element reference model - required elements at 
>a minimum.  If a message is sent that complies with the ERM, then 
>you can be compliant with any of the specific messages.
>Deliver a RequestResource message and a ResponsetoRequestResource 
>message (just 2 messages).
>If a vendor does either or, for purposes of statement of use and 
>getting the standard out the door, this should be the minimum 
>Position 2:
>Agreed with position 1
>A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource Deployment should be 
>the minimum:
>RequestResource >
>ResponseToRequestResource >
>RequisitionResource >
>CommitResource >
>The messages about the deployment, requesting information, release, 
>etc are not necessary, just the 5 listed.
>NOW - please make your comments to the list.  The Mst/Not SC will 
>schedule a meeting either Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to discuss.  From 
>this a recommendation will be made.  Respond to this message too 
>with which date and what times you would be available.
>Elysa Jones
>Warning Systems, Inc.

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]