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] Thoughts on EDXL-DE and SitRep

I would agree with Brian on 2 main points

If its not backwards compatible, why would anyone adopt the new release? It takes a long period of time to get acceptance and adoption.

This concept is a major enhancement to all our standards.
While I have not been part of the discussions, I remember when it started in HAVE and the major effect it would have in flexibility in keeping all standards viable even as new elements are demanded.

In the case of SitReps especially, there is not a complete standard in data collection, and while it covers a broad area of report types, each of those report types cover the basics only. When SitReps are used, various reporting agencies and jurisdictions will have their own "tweaks" of data elements.

As to the extra time required, if the extension structure SUPPLEMENTS but does not change the base SitReps schema, then we will not have to re-validate SitReps, only the extension. This should cut down the release time maybe as little as 3-4 months.

I cannot speak to the extensions effect on DE, but I would entertain the notion of leaving it out. The idea behind the extensions was to allow "extra" data to be included without breaking validation. This capability is crucial for StiReps, can be easily included in HAVE, and would be an excellent addition to CAP.



From: "Wilkins, Brian M" <bwilkins@mitre.org>
To: "emergency@lists.oasis-open.org" <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:35 AM
Subject: RE: [emergency] Thoughts on EDXL-DE and SitRep

I understand the concern with delaying DE2 and SitRep.  There has been a lot of time and effort in getting those standards to this point. However, I feel we are not that far off from having a wider acceptance of the most recent Extension concept.  As you noted, it is being added to TEP.  It is also being added to HAVE2 and should be considered for TEC.  I am optimistic that we could get agreement on the use of Extensions in DE2 and SitRep in fairly short order (few weeks, month or so).  I would be concerned that adopters of DE2 and SitRep as they now stand will: 1. Waste time and effort implementing a standard that will be changed in the relatively near time, since the new schema will not be backwards compatible and 2. The current Choice mechanism is more complicated and may not meet community needs.  I would be willing to volunteer some more time over the next few months to help drive this forward, if that helps. 
Brian M Wilkins
Lead Software Systems Engineer
The MITRE Corporation
From: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:emergency@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Elysa Jones
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 2:19 PM
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] Thoughts on EDXL-DE and SitRep
Importance: High
We have worked hard getting SitRep1 and DE2 ready for an organizational vote and we currently have a ballot open for the purpose of approving these works as a Committee Specification.  If this passes, the next steps are obtaining statements of use then agreeing (again by special majority) to begin the 60-day review prior to organizational wide balloting. 
Discussion over the past several months regarding a “standard” extension method for all of our specifications has been ongoing.  These discussion are best documented in the RIM-SC.  TC members have been made aware of this discussion and invited to participate and stay in touch as it could affect all of our work.  I’ll not repeat any of that discussion here but ask you to keep it in mind as you make your decision about SitRep1 and DE2.
You may recall there were two versions of the DE2 being worked – one with the layer-extension concept and one without.  We decided to go forward without at this time but all agreed we should keep it in mind and find some way to incorporate later - perhaps through common types.  Some of our members are concerned with releasing DE (as well as SitRep) without this extension concept and then trying to make a change later would be problematic.  We all know how long changes can take and we are anxious to get this work out.  We learned in the last couple of weeks that this extension method would solve some issues with TEP as well.  So, after considering putting this in TEP, it has re-opened the discussion about DE and SitRep in some circles.
The bottom line here is that we have members that are re-thinking whether we need to put either of these standards out without this extension concept.  We have sufficient votes today to move the as they are to Committee Specification.  The ballot closes tomorrow.  If we wish to add “extensions” to DE2 and SitRep, we will have to make not only changes to the document and back through public review again.
Personally, having a “standardized” extension method across all our standards is very appealing to me.  However, delaying SitRep and DE2 concerns me if it is going to take another year.  If it can be completed in 6 months, it concerns me a little less - but only if sufficient resources are available to turn this around quickly.  Basically DE2 has already been done and there is a WD version with it included.  I’m not sure about how much time it would take to add it to SitRep.
Please respond to this note with your thoughts.
Elysa Jones, Chair

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