Re: summary from RIM

[Rex Brooks <rex.brooks@ncoic.org>]

Thanks Jeff, Hi Elysa and Everyone,

This is what I meant in the TC meeting yesterday, Elysa, when I said we were nearing consensus, so you might want to put it in an addendum to the TC Meeting Notes. I am copying the TC list with this because I think it is significant and could enter into the work of SCs as guidance.

I also just heard today of an NCOIC Cybersecurity meeting-demo in mid-April in which we may be able to team up with the SOA-RM TC for a demo that would provide the basis for the remaining statements of use we need. I will know more next week. I will only consider using our specifications in areas where we are very likely to succeed.

Cheers,
Rex

On 2/26/2013 8:59 AM, Jeff Waters wrote:

Hi, Rex:

  Here is my summary from our last RIM, at least the best I have at the moment. I don't have minutes up yet.

(1) Guidance for usage of “unknown”: “If an element is required and a list of default values is provided, the list should contain the value “UNKNOWN”; however, practitioners should only utilize this value when the element value is truly unknown.”

(2) Recommendation for usage of “Layers”:  “Layers (extensions) are recommended for usage across the EDXL family, along with Profiles (constraints), and the RIM is in the process of generating guidance documents on these.”

(3)  Recommendation for additional policy documentation:  “Organizations, communities and governments at the various national, regional and local levels should define the guidance and policy needed for using Layers and Profiles. Changes to the body of the formal standard itself, e.g. CAP, should be limited to those changes needed to serve the entire community. National, regional, or local concerns should be addressed through the use of Extensions and Profiles.”

Thanks.

--Jeff

-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 
1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone: 510-898-0670