Hi Rex,
I just wanted to ensure we are clear and have common expectations regarding
your second point. Others on distribution are better equipped than I to
address "EDXL-AT", except to say that EDXL-AT will be a separate and
distinct submission (if and when it comes) from "Incident / Situation
Reporting" (FYI, this next standard is simply being referred to as
"incident/Situation reporting" due to the much broader range of requirements
implied by the term "Situational Awareness").
The standards submission coming from DM/SWG/EIC certainly will adhere to the
detailed requirements per the OASIS template, as was required after the fact
for RM. In addition, integrated with those textual requirements will be a
draft logical design. As I think you agree, this is essential in order to
completely and accurately specify practitioner information needs for each
required exchange (i.e. a draft data dictionary), and how the information
elements must relate to one another (i.e. a UML diagram as you say). This
will all be driven from use cases developed through rigorous exercise of
scenarios that address all hazards, "incidents" from local/day to day
through Disaster scale, and include participation from a range of
emergency/disaster/public safety professions.
As I said, this will be a logical design which must be adhered to. I fully
agree with you that a technical design should not be attempted. The OASIS
TC excels at taking the SWG artifacts and making the specification
technically feasible and flexible, while meeting all practitioner
requirements. I also believe some integration / common usage design will be
needed between existing EDXL specs and this new one. This is another area
where the TC would best serve the practitioners.
I also agree that an EDXL reference info model is very important and should
be formally addressed soon, and we have some ideas to contribute. I think
your earlier write-up forms a great starting point for that task
Best Regards,
Tim
