Len -
I am not advocating a CALS approach! :-)
I am advocating reuse of existing standards, ontologies, and related
vocabulary when and where appropriate. Creating a new standard from the ether
that does not seek any harmonization with other, well deployed standards work
creates islands of standards (sort of like islands of automation) that do
not themselves interoperate. I do not think anyone in the EM TC wants EDXL to
exist in isolation.
I think we can all agree that we do not want to complicate the process. We
do want clarity. But we also want long term usability and we want OASIS
standards that are useful and relevant beyond the requirements of one US Federal
organization! EDXL, if properly done, will have uptake in other countries. Even
from a more parochial perspective, I would suspect that DHS would like to be
able to "interoperate" much better with Canada, Mexico, and other nations in a
time of crisis. Just a thought.
Cheers
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From:
Bullard, Claude L (Len)
To: 'Carl Reed OGC' ;
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:16
AM
Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: OMA
Specification that may be highly relevant to EDXL work. Check it out.
Carl:
Versions of that drawing are older than 1999. Feedback is
feedback. Existing
fielded systems talk in terms of roles, subscriptions for
publish/subscribe and
so
forth. Outside of real-time 3D, I'm not even sure what terms like
'presence'
mean.
My
concern is that over time, introducing more liaisons,
organizations and overlapping
standards will complicate the process, lengthen it, and dilute the
outcome. My hope
is
that DHS is able to create a strategy for short-term systems to be deployed in
the
next
two years, middle term for the next five to seven years, and out to ten years
which
is
realistically as far as we can play. For this to work, a Draconian
reduction in the
standards and terminology and organizations that produce them is
required.
Otherwise, this becomes CALS again and we will watch
another $4 billion evaporate
without fielding any interoperable systems.
cheers,
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Reed OGC
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005
4:49 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len);
Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: OMA
Specification that may be highly relevant to EDXL work. Check it out.
Claude -
Actually, the work of the IETF pre-dates anything being done in this
area by OASIS, the OGC, or OMA. The original SIP Internet RFC dates back to
1999. SIP has been extended since then and there are a number of companion
RFC's related to presence, events, and so forth. And while PIDF and PIDF-LO
are working their way through the IETF process, I think that it is excellent
that OMA is building on the work of other standards organizations rather
than re-inventing the wheel. Further, the PIDF-LO draft leverages the work
of the OGC - uses GML 3.1.
Kind regards
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From:
Bullard, Claude L (Len)
To: 'Carl Reed OGC' ; ''
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 12:01
PM
Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: OMA
Specification that may be highly relevant to EDXL work. Check it out.
It is amazing how many ways and terms we can find to abstract
roles and subscriptions so we can have yet another locus of
control based standard.
Standards and speeches: the full time consultant
economy.
Personally rooting for the DHS ontology efforts to tie it all
together.
len
From: Carl Reed OGC
[mailto:]
I dug around the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) site - actually
looking for standards info OASIS can use as part of their EDXL work.
Reviewed a document titled OMA-TS-Presence_SIMPLE-V1_0-20050427-C. The intro
paragraph states:
The document defines an application level specification
for the OMA SIP/SIMPLE-based Presence Service. It defines the presence
information semantics for presence information conveyed using the
Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) the Rich Presence Information
Data Format (RPID) and geographical information conveyed in a GEOPRIV
location object (see [PIDFLO]) specified by the IETF in conjunction with
the overall Presence Data Model defined in
[PRESDATAMODEL].
