On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 13:46, Tom Merkle wrote:
> Allen:
> I see many initiatives occurring in developing data standards for the
> first responders, public health, and transportation areas. In the
> tactical approach we can leverage existing work in some of the areas and
> create standards where the gaps occur. The major problem with this
> approach is trying to keep all inputs synchronized when a change occurs.
Exactly - this is dead on what the EM TC has signed up for and is doing.
Our Infrastructure Framework SC is responsible for identifying and
"mapping" the existing work in a manner we can leverage, which allows
the TC to then focus on the gaps. I also completely agree with the major
problem, and I can assure you the Chair of the IF SC is fully aware of
that challenge.
> A well defined parent child structure must be in place to help provide
> an impact analysis diagram so all areas impacted may understand the
> proposed change.
You should hook up with the IF SC Chair, Rick Carlton - this is his
baby. We are trying to stay at a level where we can not necessarily
solve all the world's problems, but rather improve the situation without
causing problems. I will defer to Rick for a more thorough description
of his focus. He only let's me talk so much :)
> The strategic approach would be to gather all of the various standards
> into an umbrella standard that mandates the impact analysis and change
> management processes. This would provide the "national level" standard
> which is comprised from various standard developing organizations that
> provide their expertise in specific areas.
> Just some thoughts.
And certainly all good ones!
> Tom
>
> --Original Message--
> From: Allen Wyke [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:35 PM
> To:
> Subject: [emergency] Cross Standard Definition of Incident Types
>
>
> This email is in regards to a question I asked in the agenda of the 7/1
> call
> (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency/200307/msg00000.html).
>
> Here is what I wrote in that original email:
>
> <snip>
> a recent thread within the MSG SC (several messages - starts with
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-msg/200306/msg00024.html)
> got my gears turning and I wanted to throw something out to the group
> and get feedback. In a nutshell, do we think we will use incident types
> across several/all of our standards? If so, should we define those
> external to any one standard as part of its own data dictionary? That
> way each of our standards could use it as they need/see fit. Note that I
> do not want to slow or disrupt CAP with this question, so the "right"
> answer might be two pronged (short-term vs. long-term). Art had some
> good comments/thoughts on why we need to be VERY careful to even
> CONSIDER this, so this is not by any means a definite. Art, can you pull
> together notes from that email and reply to this message at some point
> with your thoughts? </snip>
>
> Specifically, I was wondering if it made sense for us to standardize,
> either by our own creation or through adoption, of various incident
> types. Right now, for instance, CAP specifies some incident types. We do
> not want to disrupt or slow down CAP, but we may want to think broader
> about incident definitions for CAP 1.1/2.0 and other/future EM TC
> standards.
>
> Thoughts?
--
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
