Title: RE: [emergency] Naming Conventions
Got
it, Rex. The usual meta-meta problem: do a data design a la
abstract interface
or
create a vocabulary. I like the VRML solution to that: do both with
the
encodings and vocabularies as optional features. It's more work but
one
can
nail down the semantics and give the user community a chance
to
converge at the level of efficiency most appropriate to the local
contracting
situation. When volunteer groups sit down to create specs and
standards,
they
should keep in mind the problem for the actual industry of
changing
horses. We're glad to see the work being done by OASIS in
public safety,
but
until it shows up in an RFP, it's just nice-to-have, Sounds Good Maybe
Later,
kind
of work. DOJ can't drive it down from the top without funding it
too. And
technical standards that don't account for medium constraints don't
have a
snowball's chance anyway. Thus, we use the RFP to guide us and
cost
accordingly.
I note
reading through the JusticeXML dictionary that they have wisely left
open
most aspects of the data definition (eg, loose types, loose occurrence
constraints, etc) and stayed mainly to a labeled tree. Much easier
to live
with
that way.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 11:48
AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc:
Subject: RE: [emergency] Naming
Conventions
Hi Len,
Please see my reply to Eliot's post.
