Re: [emergency-if] RE: DE SitRep requirement / request

Title: [emergency-if] Groups - DE2.0DraftSchema_12_07_2010.zip
        (DE2.0DraftSchema_12_07_2010.zip) uploaded

  
  
    I'm fine with it, as is.

    

    Cheers,

    Rex

    

    On 12/13/10 7:40 AM, Timothy Grapes wrote:
    019701cb9adc$20937b50$61ba71f0$@com"
      type="cite">
      
      
      
      
      
      

        
Actually I am OK with leaving it at the current
            level for a number of reasons.  I submitted this as a
            follow up from our  SitRep F to F where this was identified
            on the issues list and requested for submission to the DE
            folks – so I followed through on the process.

        
 

        
SitRep team – we did discuss this and at least
            one or more felt this was important.  Please chime in.

        
 

        
Jeff, sorry I missed your call.  Though this may
            “shorten” that call a bit I’ll try you back shortlyJ.

        

          
Thanks,

          
Tim Grapes

          
Evotec

          
703-304-4829

          
 

        

        
 

        

          

            
From: McGarry,
                Donald P. [mailto:] 

                Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:46 PM

                To: Timothy Grapes; ;
                

                Cc: ; ;
                'Rob Torchon'; 'Werner Joerg'; 'Lewis Leinenweber';
                

                Subject: RE: DE SitRep requirement / request

          

        

        
 

        
Tim-

        
I’ll chime in here.  I think we need to keep
            distribution type in the header section…

        
Here’s why:

        
Conflicting distribution types can lead to
            delivery problems and all though it’s just an opinion, I
            think distribution type is focused more on delivery versus
            just content metadata.  The way that I look at is that
            related items should get packed in a single DE.  If you have
            a NEW report and an UPDATE report they aren’t related per
            se and should go in separate DE’s.  I think the way we
            should address as you mentioned by saying you should send
            separate DE’s.  

        
 

        

          
-Don

          
Office: 315-838-2669

          
Cell: 703-595-9375

          


        

        
 

        

          

            
From: Timothy
                Grapes [mailto:] 

                Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 1:55 PM

                To: ;
                

                Cc: ; McGarry, Donald P.;
                ; 'Rob Torchon'; 'Werner Joerg';
                'Lewis Leinenweber'; 

                Subject: DE SitRep requirement / request

                Importance: High

          

        

        
 

        
Hi Jeff,

        
Your update today reminded my about an issue we
            ran into for SitReps.  I thought one of our members had
            submitted this into your process a while back, but
            apparently not.

        
 

        
Given how late we are in the process, I would
            request you add this to your issues list and evaluate both
            the urgency and ease.  If valid and easy perhaps it can be
            accommodated.  Otherwise it should live on a list for
            another iteration.

        
 

        
“The EDXL-DE can only allow one distribution
            type, which must be applied consistently across all content
            objects if multiple content objects exist.  With SitReps and
            the high interest it is generating from state and local
            regions, request that the distribution type element be moved
            to the content object level.  SitReps is constructed using 5
            basic report types all hinged together by a common root
            (e.g. “Field Observation”, “casualty and illness
            summary” and “Response Resources…).  However, one and
            only one report type may be applied within any given SitRep
            root (due to valid business rules that have been
            agreed-upon).  The DE provides the capability and meets our
            requirement for “multiple SitReps in a single
            ‘message’”, and is also the solution for sending of
            multiple SitRep report types within one “send”.  For
            example, sending of a “Field Observation” report type
            with a “casualty and illness summary” report type
            requires 2 DE content objects.  However, use cases exist
            where one content object would require one distribution type
            selection such as “update’, while the other would
            require a different distribution type such as
            “report”.”

        
 

        
The work around to not doing this in the DE 2.0,
            is that a user must send one and only one SitRep Report type
            per each  DE (one content object), unless all of the content
            objects / SitRep report types sent can ALL apply the same
            distribution type such as “update”.  

        

          
Thanks for your consideration Jeff et al,

          
Tim Grapes

          
Evotec

          
703-304-4829

          
 

        

        
 

        

          

            
From:
                 [mailto:] 

                Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:51 AM

                To: 

                Subject: [emergency-if] Groups -
                DE2.0DraftSchema_12_07_2010.zip
                (DE2.0DraftSchema_12_07_2010.zip) uploaded

          

        

        
 

        
The uploaded zip file contains
            a proposed EDXL DE 2.0 Draft Schema

            (Version: Dec 7, 2010) with HAVE Examples

            ----------------------------

            Two examples are included using a HAVE report, first in a DE
            wrapper and

            second with DE descriptive content in a SOAP wrapper. A
            third Sample.xml

            file is also provided to show the DE 2.0 schema structure.
            These examples

            should validate and allow you to explore the draft schema.
            This version of

            the schema incorporates Jeff's original version with Don's
            modifications as

            of Dec 7, 2010.

            

            Please review, test with your EDXL content, and provide
            comments. Thanks

            

             -- Jeff Waters

            

            The document named DE2.0DraftSchema_12_07_2010.zip

            (DE2.0DraftSchema_12_07_2010.zip) has been submitted by Jeff
            Waters to the

            EM Infrastructure Framework SC document repository.

            

            Document Description:

            EDXL DE 2.0 Draft Schema with HAVE Examples (Version: Dec 7,
            2010)

            ----------------------------

            (NOTE: Two examples are included using a HAVE report, first
            in a DE wrapper

            and second with DE descriptive content in a SOAP wrapper. A
            third

            Sample.xml file is also provided to show the DE 2.0 schema
            structure. These

            examples should validate and allow you to explore the draft
            schema. This

            version of the schema incorporates Jeff's original version
            with Don's

            modifications as of Dec 7, 2010)

            

            Interesting changes in this schema from the original DE
            schema include:

            (1) the xlink standard is used to link content objects;

            (2) a gml-compliant profile that includes circle, polygon,
            etc. from geoRSS

            is used for targetArea (until geo-oasis:Where is available);

            (3) a reorganized schema is provided with more global
            elements to enable

                DE descriptive components (such as SenderRole,
            ReceiverRole and

            Keyword) to be used outside of the DE wrapper components so
            that the

            benefits of the DE can be used with other standard wrappers;

            (4) the xsd choice structure is used to enable defaults for
            ValueListURI

            structures;

            (5) a common types schema is provided along with a defaults
            schema;

            (6) an abstract class, IContent, is used, rather than xsd
            choice, for

            selecting xml content versus other content.

            

            Please review, test with your EDXL content, and provide
            comments. Thanks

            

            

            

            View Document Details:

            http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=40509

            

            Download Document: 

            http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/40509/DE2.0DraftSchema_12_07_2010.zip

            

            

            PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your
            email application

            may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able
            to copy and paste

            the entire link address into the address field of your web
            browser.

            

            -OASIS Open Administration

        

          

        
No virus found in this message.

          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

          Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3300 - Release Date:
          12/06/10