Elysa -
You're right to be careful about attributing motive, of course... but
I'll confess I'm at a loss to think of who might have made such
claims on behalf of DM and EIC who wouldn't have known better.
Thanks!
- Art
At 2:12 PM -0600 3/2/05, Elysa Jones wrote:
>Dear Art,
>
>Agreed. In no way has our TC changed our standardization process
>and I thought I made that clear in the meeting. We have just agreed
>to accept a set of requirements from an outside source, i.e., the DM
>program via the EIC. This is not the only work of the TC but one
>agreed to task.
>
>Also agreed, the DM nor the EIC created CAP. CAP was generated in
>response to a need to standardize a method for issuing alert and
>warning information with roots back to the 2000 publication you
>cite. We have not taken on the task of all data sharing among even
>the emergency management community much less, the nation. However,
>let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. CAP 1.0 is a
>viable standard for the purpose it was developed as evidenced by the
>many groups worldwide that are utilizing it for the purpose it was
>intended. To the extend the EM-TC can support the DM program (and
>the widespread emergency management community) with further
>standardization efforts, I believe it is within our charter.
>
>This report is the reason I only provided a brief overview of the
>meeting during our conference call and preferred to send the full
>summary to the list. It is interesting what actually gets
>documented. I don't believe it was a "a self-serving disregard for
>accuracy" but an honest attempt to capture the large number of
>issues that came out of two long days of meetings with people that
>do not normally share domains. There was not a draft generated for
>review by the participants. That may be a good suggestion for the
>future meetings.
>
>Thank you for your comments.
>Elysa
>
>At 11:36 AM 3/2/2005, Art Botterell wrote:
>
>>Friends -
>>
>>For the record I want to challenge two inflated claims that appear
>>in that meeting report:
>>
>>>DM approached OASIS and requested that OASIS change its
>>>standardization process to meet DM's needs and OASIS agreed.
>>>
>>
>>OASIS has not changed its process in any way intended to meet DM's
>>needs. Nor has this TC departed from that process. All this TC
>>agreed to do was accept submissions from DM and the EIC as a basis
>>for standard-making efforts, in exactly the same way it accepted
>>the PPW submission of requirements and a draft for CAP two years
>>earlier.
>>
>>>DM and the EIC created CAP because public safety practitioners
>>>emphasized that they could not share information.
>>>
>>
>>Neither DM nor the EIC created CAP. Neither group's involvement
>>began until CAP was brought into the OASIS standards process, by
>>which time it was already at version 0.7 and reflected two years'
>>documented prior effort, including prototyping and field trials, by
>>the CAP Working Group and the Partnership for Public Warning among
>>others. And even then, DM was only one member of this Technical
>>Committee.
>>
>>Nor is information sharing among public safety practitioners the
>>primary purpose of CAP. From the beginning the goal of CAP has
>>been to translate scientific research on the effectiveness of
>>public warnings into a usable standard for the dissemination and
>>coordination of such warnings. (Specifically, CAP's origins and
>>structure can be traced back to the recommendations of the
>>"Effective Disaster Warnings" report issued by the National Science
>>and Technology Council in November, 2000.) Information sharing
>>among practitioners is the goal of EDXL, not CAP.
>>
>>These misrepresentations trouble me, not only because they
>>disregard the selfless contributions of a number of people and
>>groups over several years, but because they suggest a self-serving
>>disregard for accuracy that puts the entire document in question.
>>
>>- Art
>>
>>
