[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Profile guidance
Thanks Darrell for the comment. Certainly the CIQ and GML profiles are FOR EDXL, and were internally generated out of need. I mention them in this discussion in the event members were not involved in them and are confused about the distinction. I invite those members to the work on common types for additional information.
We have seen “Country” CAP profiles developed with guidance from the TC (IPAWS/AU), CAP profiles with close ties but generated and maintained outside the TC (CA) and one we understand for Italy that we have not seen. There are others that companies have also developed, like Google – but they are considering changing from the term “profile”. Other EDXL standards will not likely require the level of “Profiling” needed for the CAP 1.1 and 1.2 Standards since they have the value list concept for “extensions.”
Here's a question for the group.
Is it worth noting that the profiles that have been created for CIQ and GML are FOR the EDXL suite, as opposed to profiles made IN the EDXL suite?
On 2012-06-30, at 9:46 AM, Elysa Jones wrote:
The EM-TC is revisiting its use of Profile for our CAP. We have as you know developed CS EDXL Profiles for CIQ and GML Simple Features. The profiles for EDXL are under the guidance and development of our RIM-SC. CAP profiles to date have been recommended to the TC through work done in a specially chartered CAP Profiles SC. CAP is a bit different in that it (to date) has been brought to the TC from an external source. The CIQ and GML-SF were internally generated to support our common types efforts through our developing specifications.
CAP is also unique in that it has such wide spread international and cross-discipline use; comments raised during the CAP workshop about the use of and better definition of when and how it profiles should be used; the question of whether we properly follow ISO guidance, any applicability to use of profiles with ASN.1 and the effects on x.1303, etc…. The TC is taking a look at our past in this areas and reviewing the reasons we are where we are. Much of this was discussed when we first developed the IPAWS profile. At that time I too asked for OASIS technical guidance and studied the use of profiles throughout the organization. We factored that guidance into our direction. As now some time has passed, I want to ask you for any guidance you might have for us given some of the specific issues raised above. If you would like to schedule a call to discuss, please let me know. Our TC meets on alternating Tues (July 3 next meeting) at 12ET if you would like to join and speak to the group as a whole on the matter or schedule a time after that for a specific discussion.
Thank you as always for your consideration and support for our work!
Elysa Jones, Chair