Hi Everyone, Renato,
I am forwarding to the TC list Karen's reply to the message I sent
out last week to Karen and Renato and this list, and copying Renato.
I haven't heard back yet from Renato, but I did want to let the TC
know that I hope we can have a Requirements Document ready for the
Face-to-Face.
I want to take this opportunity to anticipate what I think may well
be the central discussion around which specific topics will be
addressed.
I think we will have two primary lines of thought wrt the EDXL-RIM:
1: Defining Abstract Concepts (with Reference URLs where appropriate)
for Common Components:
EDXL-DE Dependency;
ValueListTypes with Keywords (hopefully using XMDR and ISO 11179 NDR);
geo-oasis: Where for TargetArea - Location citing
OpenGeospatial Consoritum GML;
ContactInformation using CIQ;
Scheduling Types reusing what we have developed for EDXL-RM;
Conceptual Conformance to DRM 2.0 as feasible;
Conceptual Conforimance to NIEM as feasible;
2: Abstract Information Modeling:
Hierarchical DOM-like Modeling of Information Structure;
EDXL-DE Message Routing;
Security and Non-Repudiation;
Individual Specification Content Payload;
Message Exchange Patterns;
More
I would expect that the structure of the RIM will resemble the
EDXL-RM Information Model Renato contributed to the Document
Repository 2006-07-26
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-msg/download.php/19357/EDXL-RM-Info-Model-2006-07-26.pdf
Cheers,
Rex
>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:46:24 +1000
>Thread-Topic: EDXL-Reference Information Model
>Thread-Index: Acdu+akDuSHfQd0OQTu+kkCNo8WyxwBJEdQQ
>From: "Karen Robinson" <>
>To: "Rex Brooks" <>
>X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 129.94.151.12
>X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To:
>X-SA-Exim-Mail-From:
>Subject: RE: EDXL-Reference Information Model
>X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100)
>X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on ajax.nicta.com.au)
>X-Rcpt-To: <>
>X-DPOP: Version number supressed
>
>
>Hi Rex,
>
>Thanks for sending the EDXL-RIM requirements document you produced so
>far. I suspect that this week is not very good for Renato for a
>teleconference - he will be on leave until Wednesday and then still out
>of town on Thursday-Friday. I am available this week, but I think it
>would probably be more useful to wait until Renato is available, since I
>know he has some good ideas about what should be in the EDXL-RIM.
>
>Just so you know, I will be going on maternity leave in late May (and
>will probably be quite busy up until then). Hopefully I can dial in for
>some of the afternoon discussions during the face-to-face meetings in
>San Diego, but unfortunately I won't be able to be involved in the
>development of the EDXL-RIM in the longer term, as I'll be taking at
>least 9 months of maternity leave (perhaps a full year, depending how
>things work out!).
>
>Karen.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:]
>> Sent: Monday, 26 March 2007 2:21 AM
>> To: Renato Iannella; Karen Robinson
>> Cc:
>> Subject: EDXL-Reference Information Model
>>
>> Hi Renato, Karen,
>>
>> I'm writing to get the task of building the EDXL Reference
>> Information Model started (EDXL-RIM). The TC voted last week to make
>> this a priority and to spend a large proportion of the upcoming
>> Face-to=Face meetings at the OASIS Symposium 2007 on establishing
>> Scope and Requirements. I volunteered to work with you to build a
>> EDXL Framework or Skeleton document from which we can work in the
>> meeting to get this effort underway. We are scheduling these
>> discussion for Afternoon in San Diego, California so that, hopefully,
>> you can participate as much as possible. I will also be attending via
>> teleconference, so I expect the pace will necessarily have to
>> accommodate us. While it is not optimal, it is doable.
> >
>> I am attaching the Requirments Specification Template as a place to
>> start. I know my own initial impetus is the same that I consistently
>> warn other groups about. I feel like I know enough about this family
>> of specifications from having been involved with it from the start
>> that I can just jump in and start reeling off requirements, and I
>> will certainly be making initial suggestions.
>>
>> However, I think we should eat our own cooking, so I am going to
>> start with the need to establish clear scope and requirements. I
>> would like to avoid the temptation to start diagramming information
>> classes and relationships between these classes for the time being at
>> least.
>>
>> Although I am attaching my bare-bones start of a Requirements
>> Specification, I am including a first pass at the first text section:
>> **************************
>> Document Scope and Purpose
>> This document states the Functional Requirements for the overall
>> family of Emergency Data Exchange Language specifications. As such,
>> these requirements should be formulated as the abstract principles
>> which govern the enumerated elements within the individual
>> specifications.
>>
>> For Instance, the Emergency Data Exchange Language Distribution
>> Element 1.0 Specification (EDXL-DE.Spec_v1.0) specifies <targetArea>
>> for geospatial or political area with specific information regarding
>> the originator's intent with regard to the routing of an EDXL message.
>>
>> It used a naming convention with an initial lower camel case letter
>> that has since been replaced a convention that uses an initial upper
>> camel case letter. This document should explicitly state the broad
>> naming and design rules that have been adopted.
>>
>> Moreover, the EDXL-RIM SHOULD define the concept of <TargetArea> or
>> <Area> as an abstraction that can be used for the EDXL-DE or the
>> EDXL-Resource Messaging (EDXL-RM) specifications, or any future EDXL
>> specifications. Such a definition SHOULD be sufficently broad and
>> abstract to allow the basic concept to be used consistently across
>> the spectrum of EDXL specifications. As such, this requirements
>> specification SHOULD NOT include as a requirement the most concrete
>> level of information, such as the originator's intent or specifically
>> that both geospatial and political MUST be included because that
>> would not be true for the element <TargetArea> in EDXL-RM that does
>> not include political information nor an area defined by intent.
>> **************************
>> I don't want to go any further than this right now. I would like to
>> set up a time for a teleconference with you if I can so we can add
>> just enough to the Requirements document to use as a Framework to
>> channel discussion in the Face to Face meeting. We need to have the
>> TC's input.
>>
>> Hopefully we can decide which SC should carry this work forward.
>> While the Messages and Notification SC has handled the EDXL family so
>> far, I am fairly sure we will see a specific sponsored recommendation
>> coming from the Infrastructure TC which will fall within EDXL as
>> well, so it is a decision that needs to be taken carefully. However,
>> since we have championed this concept for a while, we should help get
>> it launched in the best way we can.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rex
>>
>> --
>> Rex Brooks
>> President, CEO
>> Starbourne Communications Design
>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>> Berkeley, CA 94702
>> Tel: 510-849-2309
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309
