Glad to hear about the comments from OGC. Either way or both is fine for
getting them out. As EM-TC chair, I have been invited to a couple of
meetings with the Justice folks during the week of NEMA (Feb11-17). The
data issues will be on the agenda for a meeting with DHS-DM, EIC, Justice
and others Feb 16-17. Your comments will be helpful. Thanks, Elysa
At 10:03 AM 2/5/2005, Rex Brooks wrote:
>Hi Carl,
>
>I think that if you send the comments to the EM TC mailing list, all of us
>in this group will get it, but what I would do in addition is to put the
>comments in the body of the message and then upload the document
>separately to the TC document repository so that we have two ways of
>accessing it and referring to it.
>
>Regards,
>Rex
>
>At 07:28 AM 2/5/2005, Carl Reed OGC wrote:
>>I have received some very good comments on GJXDM from some OGC members.
>>They have asked me to bundle the comments up and pass them on. I was
>>wondering what the best mechanism would be to properly share these
>>comments with the GJXDM folks?
>>
>>Thanks for any guidance.
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Daconta, Michael"
>><>
>>To: <>; <>; "Daconta, Michael"
>><>; <>
>>Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 6:02 AM
>>Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
>>
>>
>>>Hi Everyone,
>>>I will email the group later with more thoughts on GJXDM. In general, I
>>>agree with Rex's position below. My concern I expressed yesterday was
>>>because I have seen it many times before where groups favor invention
>>>over reuse. I know the GJXDM is not perfect but I also believe it is
>>>well worth the effort to fix, improve and reuse it.
>>>--------------------------
>>>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Rex Brooks <>
>>>To: Art Botterell <>; Daconta, Michael
>>><>;
>>><>
>>>Sent: Wed Dec 29 18:53:42 2004
>>>Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
>>>
>>>Just to add my $.02 a bit further, I don't think there is much chance
>>>of us adopting a "not-invented-here" parochialism. Since a few of us
>>>are trudging through the entire GJXDM to discover what and where the
>>>differences are with the work we've done so far, I suspect that we
>>>will most likely recommend best practices for implementors to use the
>>>appropriate namespaced term. To do that we must first do the
>>>diligence of comprehensive comparison so we can then look at
>>>similarities, duplications and differences and make our
>>>recommendations.
>>>
>>>And just to add a bit more, while I am keeping my mind open to
>>>alternatives, I suspect we will end up settling on the use of an
>>>ontological approach to making our recommendations: for uses in
>>>inontology/taxonomy x, use schema a, for uses in ontology/taxonomy y,
>>>use b, etc. I am personally in favor of using existing work whereever
>>>it doesn't require too many extensions to cover the requirements we
>>>have scoped for the particular piece of work.
>>>
>>>Ciao,
>>>Rex..
>>>
>>>At 1:14 PM -0800 12/29/04, Art Botterell wrote:
>>>>Michael, it's not my intent to disturb you. However, I assume you'd
>>>>agree that there's also a risk in trying to force what may prove to
>>>>be unlike concepts into like boxes just for short-term convenience.
>>>>
>>>>We need to look carefully at the realities of the real-world
>>>>applications and processes before reflexively adopting prior art
>>>>just because "it was there first." I'm sure you're not suggesting
>>>>the latter approach. Nor have I ever objected to reuse where it's
>>>>appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>- Art
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 4:04 PM -0500 12/29/04, Daconta, Michael wrote:
>>>>>This email thread is disturbing... I would hope this TC can avoid
>>>>>the "not invented here syndrome" and focus on reusing schema
>>>>>elements where the concepts are equivalent or can be aligned.
>>>>>--------------------------
>>>>>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Art Botterell <>
>>>>>To: <>
>>>>>Sent: Wed Dec 29 15:43:52 2004
>>>>>Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
>>>>>
>>>>>At 9:34 AM -0500 12/29/04, Ham, Gary A wrote:
>>>>>>To be GJXDM compliant we would probably have to change the "eventType"
>>>>>>to something more akin to "EmergencyEventTypeCode"...
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure whether "compliant" is the right criterion. Our
>>>>>functional goal is "compatible"... framing it in terms of compliance
>>>>>transforms a technical issue into a political one. I'm not sure
>>>>>that's either necessary or wise.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not necessary because we have the mechanism of namespaces to allow
>>>>>domain-specific element design choices to be made "close to the
>>>>>ground," nearer to functional concerns and farther from bureaucratic
>>>>>ones. It gives us a viable alternative to the
>>>>>grand-unified-data-model-of-everything approach, which I'm afraid may
>>>>>be self-defeating in its scope.
>>>>>
>>>>>And not wise for several reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) Adopting a stance of "compliance" to one user group... in this
>>>>>case, the justice community... necessarily distances us a bit from
>>>>>others... fire, transportation, health, etc. While I realize that
>>>>>Justice is ascendant in post-9/11 America, we're part of an
>>>>>international standards organization and those of us who've been at
>>>>>this for awhile have seen these trends shift back and forth over the
>>>>>decades.
>>>>>
>>>>>2) There's a learning curve here. As Gary points out, just because
>>>>>the GJXDM was the earliest and largest doesn't mean it got everything
>>>>>right. We need to leave the door open for learning and improvement.
>>>>>(After all, the US had the first color television standard in the
>>>>>world... and as a result spent the next forty years looking at the
>>>>>worst color tv pictures in the world.)
>>>>>
>>>>>3) As mentioned above, the wider the scope of a data model, the more
>>>>>technical and political inertia it accumulates. Keeping a degree of
>>>>>compartmentalization lends flexibility, so long as there's a
>>>>>mechanism (e.g., namespaces) for preventing collisions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now I'm not arguing against adopting an ISO 11179-based naming
>>>>>scheme. I'm just suggesting that we ought to think carefully and
>>>>>explicitly before slipping into an assumption that we're somehow
>>>>>obliged to comply with some other group's scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>>- Art
>>>>>--
>>>>>Art Botterell
>>>>>Common Alerting Protocol Program Manager
>>>>>Partnership for Public Warning
>>>>>www.PartnershipForPublicWarning.org
>>>>>(707) 750-1006
>>>>>
>>>>>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_workgroup.php.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Rex Brooks
>>>President, CEO
>>>Starbourne Communications Design
>>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
>>>W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
>>>Email:
>>>Tel: 510-849-2309
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO, Starbourne Communications Design
>Executive Director, Humanmarkup.org, Inc.
>1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>510-849-2309
>
>
>
>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.
>
>
