After consideration, I agree with Rex's process suggestions.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rex Brooks" <>
To: <>; "Walid Ramadan" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP-related Comments
> Hi Folks,
>
> Having been privy to the discussions on ICS 201, which overlapped
> some of Walid's CAP items list, and now having read Carl's and Art's
> responses to Walid's list, and considering that we have conducted two
> kinds of tests, I believe we have fulfilled the measures under which
> we voted to recommend CAP as a Committee Specification. In fact we
> have well and truly exceeded OASIS TC process guidance in doing such
> tests. I don't think we need another vote on record.
>
> To be honest, there are areas where I am sure we could tighten,
> tweak, and refine CAP, but we would still be facing a 30-public
> comment period, so beyond mentioning that an Implementation Guide is
> forthcoming, and adding a couple of explanatory statements such as
> Carl has suggested, I think we should proceed. On the lat/long issue,
> I think punting at this point makes more sense. Noting that
> referenced specs should be followed according to the current practice
> pending comment on the candidate Committee Specification should be
> sufficient.
>
> I say this because we are bound to discover more issues during the
> 30-day public comment period, and CAP will not actually become a an
> official Committee Specification until we have a vote after after we
> have dealt with each of the public comment issues as a whole TC. Some
> of what has turned up in Walid's list may need to be dealt with in
> this process, so we are not abandoning or ignoring any currently
> unresolved issues.
>
> Once the 30-day public comment period has passed, then we deal with
> each of the issues that have turned up to a resolution, voting on
> these item by item if needs be. Since I know how rigorous this
> process needs to be, believe me when I say that we will have
> thoroughly gone over everything, probably twice or three times as we
> go through the issues after the first round of public comment is done.
>
> We can't know what it will look like then, no matter how satisfied or
> dissatisfied any of us are now. And the same would apply if we tried
> to anticipate all possible known or hypothetical contradicitons,
> exceptions, misstatements, misunderstandings, etc. Like any battle
> plan, it won't last past the first engagement. So I think we should
> go for it rather than wait, and, as I said, we have already voted up
> on Committee Spec status with minor revisions, which is what we have
> right now.
>
> That's my $.02.
>
> Ciao,
> Rex
>
> At 12:53 AM -0400 10/15/03, wrote:
> >Great work Walid - thanx for pulling these together.
> >
> >TC: at this point, its time for our next decision. We have to decide
> >on whether or not to address this information now or after the
> >Public Comment. Doesn't mean that 100% has to be addressed now -
> >just a decision on whether to edit the current doc now or to wait
> >until Public Comment. If not, then we send to OASIS. If there is a
> >need to edit now (or after the Public Comment for that matter), we
> >will need to look at each of these items and determine what to do
> >with them. We can basically decide to amend the spec, reject the
> >comment, debate the comment, or postpone the comment (for a future
> >spec version consideration for instance). There are some variations,
> >but you get the idea.
> >
> >At this time consider the list open to general comments on these
> >issues and how to proceed. We will do this until EOD next Tuesday,
> >at which time I will create a voting ballot on whether to edit or
> >not before we send to OASIS.
> >
> >Allen
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Walid Ramadan <>
> >Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:16 pm
> >Subject: [emergency] CAP-related Comments
> >
> >> CAP-RELATED COMMENTS
> >> AS OF 10/13/2003
> >>
> >> All:
> >>
> >> The following is a list of comments/issues that I compiled from a
> >> variety of sources. For the most part, comments were collected from
> >> these sources:
> >>
> >> * Review of the OASIS CAP-Interop monthly archives at
> >> * Comments that I received directly from TC and Sub-Committees'
> >> memberson or before 10/13/2003.
> > > * EM TC comments after the internal "format" (or "intent") test.
> >>
> >> As I went through these comments it became apparent that they
> >> could be
> >> triaged into several buckets. These buckets are the following:
> >>
> >> a) Geospatial-Related (Issues 1 through 5): Questions and comments
> >> around how CAP supports geospatial information. The result of this
> >> couldbe anything from adding geo-specific "References" or maybe a
> >> section on
> >> "How to Use Geospatial Data".
> >>
> >> b) Transformations (Issues 6 and 7): Questions and comments around how
> >> to map/transform CAP into other formats, like other XML standards,
> >> text-to-speech, ASN-1, etc. While this is mostly for backwards
> >> compatibility with existing applications, standards, products,
> >> services,etc., it can also be hugely beneficial for the future as
> >> well. Some
> >> influence should be considered from issues 9 and 28 as well.
> >>
> >> c) Transport (Issues 8 through 11): Questions and comments around
> >> how to
> >> properly exchange CAP messages. This is where the inline binary, Web
> >> Service, encryption, authentication, etc. stuff falls into place. Need
> >> to decide if this should be part of the existing specification
> >> (means we
> >> have to go back to Working Draft), or should it be addressed in a
> >> separate document that focused just on transport (current focus of
> >> TC).Some influence should be considered from issues 14, 15, and 28
> >> as well.
> >>
> >> d) System-Specific Uses (Issue 12): Questions and comments around how
> >> system specific things should be communicated within CAP. For
> >> instance,where it is "safe" to return a system-specific error code
> >> that is not
> >> standard across all uses of CAP?
> >>
> >> e) Implementer's Guide (Issues 13 through 15): These are things that
> > > seem to be most appropriately addressed in the Implementer's Guide
> >> thatis to be written per our charter. It is necessary to help
> >> implementersunderstand how to support CAP and use it in various
> >> environments. Some
> >> influence should be considered from issues 9, 10, and 28 as well.
> >>
> >> f) Unsure (Issues 16 through 21): This is a collection of issues that
> >> require discussion to determine their relevance for inclusion in
> >> the CAP
> >> standard
> >>
> >> g) Editorial and Ambiguity (Issues 22 through 28): These are places
> >> where the spec just doesn't seem to be clear on what the TC intents.
> >> Also, places where there could be some editorial clarification that
> >> doesn't change the spec.
> >>
> >> Here are the details of these buckets.
> >>
> >> [GEOSPATIAL]----------------------------------------------------
> >> 1. How to treat an <area> with no geospatial or <geocode> elements
> >> in a
> >> CAP message? How best to define <geocode>? Should <geocode> be limited
> >> to FIPS, SAME, and zip code?
> >>
> >> 2. Spec Document is silent on the format of polygons coordinate pairs:
> >> should it be in long/lat order or lat/long?
> >>
> >> 3. Geographic targeting codes: The <geocode> element, which was
> >> includedto provide backward compatibility with existing systems
> >> (notably EAS and
> >> NOAA Weather Radio, but also many local systems) also adds a bit of
> >> complexity. It seems possible that in an ideal world all areas
> >> would be
> >> in pure geospatial terms (<polygon> and <circle>) but that may be
> >> a leap
> >> too far ahead of the current state of the art to allow update of the
> >> standard. In the meantime, one suggestion has been to restrict the use
> >> of <geocode> to certain well-known coding schemes... although it's
> >> beenargued that doing so could create a barrier to adoption in
> >> existingsystems that use their own predefined alerting or response
> >> zones.
> >>
> >> 4. How to cover cases where the sender doesn't have GIS or <geocode>
> >> data readily available?
> >>
> >> 5. The interface spec will have to declare what representation
> >> format it
> >> wants for values in degrees. If it wants geographic data supplied in
> >> decimal degrees, then it should state that; if it wants it
> >> <sign>DD.MMmmm, then it should make that clear. Alternatively a
> >> separatesolution would have to be designed if multiple
> >> representation formats
> >> are permitted.
> >>
> >> [TRANSFORMATIONS]--------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> >> 6. Protocol is too vague to allow for automated mapping of CAP
> >> messagesinto other, existing systems. How to address the issue of
> >> automaticallytranslating a CAP interface in the case of
> >> specialized pre-existing
> >> alerting and warning systems?
> >>
> >> 7. How to support captioning and text-to-audio applications?
> >>
> >> [TRANSPORT]----------------------------------------------------
> >> 8. How to reconcile characteristics of a certain transport network
> >> withthe capabilities of interoperability standards such as CAP? A
> >> much more
> >> intelligent architecture than currently provided for routing is
> >> necessary.
> >>
> >> 9. Compatibility with existing systems.
> >>
> >> 10. Application of CAP in broadcasting (one-way communication medium).
> >> CAP must state exactly how one-way communication media should
> >> embed URI
> >> referenced data within the alert message. Current CAP specs rely
> >> on the
> >> ability of the receiving device to retrieve binary content, which is
> >> impossible over a one-way broadcast link. Proposed solution is to
> >> provide an explicit optional mechanism for including binary content
> >> encoded as text within CAP XML message, accompanied by
> >> restrictions on
> >> when that option should be used.
> >>
> >> 11. From a standards perspective, what is the correct way to
> >> process and
> >> therefore support CAP messages? Is there enough information in the CAP
> >> specifications to tell target implementers how to implement the
> >> standardand share CAP alerts?
> >>
> >> [SYSTEM-SPECIFIC
> >> USES]----------------------------------------------------
> >> 12. Addition of fields to CAP in order to allow the receiving
> >> device to
> >> generate an EAS activation based on a CAP message.
> > >
> >> [IMPLEMENTER'S
> >> GUIDE]----------------------------------------------------
> >> 13. Categorization of threats: The SC having tried unsuccessfully to
> >> locate or devise a taxonomy for threats which satisfied them as being
> >> both broad enough and specific enough to be useful in automated
> >> processing in all-hazards applications, the current committee
> >> draft has
> >> the <event> element as optional. Some implementers have expressed a
> >> desire for a reliable (i.e., required) way to categorize messages
> >> according to threat.
> >>
> >> 14. How to support attachments (audio files, images, etc.)? Must
> >> the CAP
> >> message always be in a SOAP message to transmit attachments?
> >> Current CAP
> >> spec offers no specifications as to how binary representations of rich
> >> presentation media can be transmitted over broadcast media.
> >>
> >> 15. CAP Alert content and the RSS feed format. More generally, the
> >> ideaof getting a "short list" of alerts to see before requesting
> >> the whole
> >> alert.
> >>
> >> [UNSURE]----------------------------------------------------
> >> 16. Categorization of responses: The committee draft doesn't
> >> attempt to
> >> encode responses into categories, but some implementers have
> >> expressed a
> >> desire to be able to automatically slot the recommended response
> >> <instruction> into one or more machine-readable (i.e., coded)
> >> categories. Should this be part of the current CAP or future versions?
> >>
> >> 17. ISO code royalty: The current spec provides for use of ISO
> >> languagecodes to identify multilingual versions. ISO has recently
> >> asserted an
> >> interest in collecting royalties for use of those codes (among
> >> others)... this is a subject of debate internationally
> >> (http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-09-20-a.html). Unless this issue is
> >> resolved very shortly, some disclosure of this issue probably
> >> needs to
> >> be included in the specification document.
> >>
> >> 18. Name attributes in schema: Anonymous data types seem to cause
> >> troubles with some parsers. It's been suggested that the schema
> >> ought to
> >> provide explicit name attributes in <simpleType> declarations. Related
> >> to the same question, should these attributes be declared globally
> >> rather than locally? Looking at the items, they could certainly be
> >> reused in other parts of the spec, and could be imported to other
> >> specsas well.
> >>
> >> 19. The existing CAP spec is not really a protocol - it is a
> >> format. It
> >> should really be referred to as Common Alerting Format, and
> > > potentiallyhave a sibling standard called Common Alerting
> >> Transport - together they
> >> create the Common Alerting Protocol.
> >>
> >> 20. Units of Measurement: The OCG has a document (based on ISO) that
> >> provides an XML schema for expressing UoM in a consistent and easily
> >> interpretable (processing) manner. The CAP group might consider using
> >> this OGC recommendation.
> >>
> >> 21. "area" Element and Sub-elements: As with Info element and Resource
> >> element, it would be nice to have an optional slot for a URL/URI (such
> >> as to an http request - like an OGC WMS request or a repository of
> >> additional spatial information). What is the purpose of the additional
> >> spatial information?
> >>
> >> [EDITORIAL and
> >> AMBIGUITY]----------------------------------------------------
> >> 22. Having multiple blocks within a single message as opposed to
> >> different messages with single blocks in multiple messages and its
> >> relation to the "rule of primacy."
> >>
> >> 23. Improvements can be made to the general schema design. For
> >> example,there is no common format describing "altitude". If such a
> >> format is
> >> available, we should define the schema (using the <restriction> and
> >> <pattern> elements) to support it. "string" leaves it wide open.
> >>
> >> 24. Use Cases and Examples: They should be in the same section of the
> >> document. More importantly, the examples do not speak to the use cases
> >> listed.
> >>
> >> 25. Editorial comments: The Data Dictionary section does not
> >> provide for
> >> SHOULD, MAY, MUST guidelines for implementers, which causes ambiguity.
> >> "eventCode" is a good example.
> >>
> >> 26. CAP makes heavy use of the word "warning", which seems odd
> > > given it
> >> is the Common Alerting Protocol. Should it say alerting instead?
> >> What is
> >> the difference between an alert, a warning, and a notification?
> >> Documentshould be consistent in the use of these terms. Document
> >> should also
> >> define those terms in order to clarify their use.
> >>
> >> 27. elementFormDefault = "qualified". Document should mention why.
> >>
> >> 28. Should CAP be a public warning protocol only or also be used for
> >> targeting messages between entities? In the latter case, what fields
> >> should be designated mandatory in order for the recipients to
> >> understandthat the messages was/was not intended for them? The use
> >> of text fields
> >> and fields designated as optional represent limiting factors.
> >>
> >> Walid
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
> >> roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-
> >> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >>
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
> >roster of the OASIS TC), go to
>
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgr
oup.php.
>
>
> --
> Rex Brooks
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
> W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
> Email:
> Tel: 510-849-2309
> Fax: By Request
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>
