Title: Re: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments
Perfection is the enemy of "good enough." Lets
just make sure that it is truly good enough.
Gary A.
Ham
Senior Research
Scientist
Battelle Memorial
Institute
540-288-5611
(office)
703-869-6241 (cell)
"You
would be surprised what you can accomplish when you do not care who gets the
credit." - Harry S. Truman
From: Aymond, Patti
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005
10:38 AM
To: Renato Iannella; Emergency_Mgt_TC TC
Subject:
RE: [emergency] Subcommittee Assignments
Renata brings up a good point
that we need to consider. At the face-to-face, we learned that the premier
requirement for the RM is that the RM be embedded in a DE because it is
dependent on some of the DE information. What happens when payloads are carved
up and forwarded to different recipients? The information from the DE is lost.
I suggest that all of the
standards (CAP, DE, RM, ...) be autonomous - fully containing all of the
information that it needs even if it means having redundant information in the
DE and the payloads. The DE should be sufficiently robust to handle any type of
payload, CAP should be a complete A&N message, and a RM message should
contain all of the information needed to manage resource procurement,
stockpiling, prepositioning, deployment, tracking, and disposition.
As far as the speed of progress. I agree
that it would be great to take our time and produce a standard that is "right",
but given the gaping hole in EM capability and the devastating consequences it
can have, I think we're right in taking the heuristic approach. We may not
produce an optimal solution, but it will be good enough to be useful, and with
each iteration, we will get closer to the "right" standard.
O.K. I'll step down off of my soapbox
now...
Patti
From: Renato Iannella
[mailto:]
Sent: Thu 11/3/2005 8:52 PM
To:
Emergency_Mgt_TC TC
Subject: Re: [emergency] Subcommittee
Assignments
On 4 Nov 2005, at 03:52, Elysa Jones wrote:
> 1.
Infrastructure SC - The DE has now completed the comment period
>
and we reviewed an overview of the comments received. Mary
>
provided a URL to the comment list. Art is putting together
the
> spread sheet with all comments for consideration. As
Mary stated
> on the call, for the EDXL DE 1.0 to be voted on this
calendar year,
> it will have to be approved by the TC to go forward
no later than
> Nov 7. I would like for the IF-SC to work
diligently over the next
> few days to provide a recommendation to
the TC as to the dispense
> of these comments. I will call a
special meeting of the TC on
> Tuesday Nov 7 from 11-12 EST for the
IF-SC to make their
> recommendations. Provided we have a
quorum and can agree to the IF-
> SC dispense, we could vote at that
meeting to go forward with a ballot
My concern is that we seem to be
pushing thru EDXL-DE when we have no
experience on
how (or if) the
work we now commence on EDXL-RM will impact on it.
This was the case for
CAP and EDXL - changes proposed in EDXL were
rejected because
CAP
did things in certain ways.
I am concerned the same will now happen with
EDXL-RM - since its
dependency on EDXL-DE is high.
I suggest the
EDXL-DE stay at committee draft for a longer period
until we are more
clear
on the technical integration with EDXL-RM. This would be the
best
outcome for the community we represent.
> 2.
Messaging SC - Now that the requirements for Resource has been
>
through the review, I would like to see the messaging SC take over
>
that work.
Where are these Requirements? Were these discussed at the last
f2f?
Cheers... Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia
(NICTA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This
email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain
legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read,
copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an
intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete
both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer
virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or
unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be
removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
IEM CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR NOTICE:
http://www.ieminc.com/e_mail_confidentiality_notice.html
