RE: [emergency] RE: OMA Specification that may be highly relevant to EDXL work. Check it out.

Carl:

 

No 
quarrel with that.   The geometry problem alone is daunting.  The 
problem of reuse as you 

know 
is that each of these independently developed standards has varying scope, so 
the 

harmonization is very hard to achieve.  Citing them by 
reference without thinning them down 

adds 
to the confusion.   My experience is that the more of these an effort 
has to handle, 

the 
longer it takes to get a solution.  Then someone independently creates a 
proprietary 

or 20% 
solution and it takes hold.  CALS died when HTML/HTTP emerged.   
So all I 

ask 
for is the least we can do, not the most.  Reuse is costly too.  It is 
the same problem 

at 
both extremes (why XML Namespaces ugly as they are must 
work).

 

If 
DHS/DoJ can get the US Federal/State/Tribal agencies to interoperate in times of 
crisis, 

I'm 
satisified.  :-)

 

len

 

(personal opinion.  not speaking for my 
employer)

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Reed OGC 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 
  10:57 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); 
  
Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: OMA 
  Specification that may be highly relevant to EDXL work. Check it out. 
  

  
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].