emergency-if — archive

[Tim Grapes]

Hi Rex, I just wanted to ensure we are clear and have common expectations regarding your second point. Others on distribution are better equipped than I to address "EDXL-AT", except to say that EDXL-AT will be a separate and distinct submission (if and when it comes) from "Incident / Situation Reporting" (FYI, this next standard is simply being referred to as "incident/Situation reporting" due to the much broader range of requirements implied by the term "Situational Awareness"). The standards submission coming from DM/SWG/EIC certainly will adhere to the detailed requirements per the OASIS template, as was required after the fact for RM. In addition, integrated with those textual requirements will be a draft logical design. As I think you agree, this is essential in order to completely and accurately specify practitioner information needs for each required exchange (i.e. a draft data dictionary), and how the information elements must relate to one another (i.e. a UML diagram as you say). This will all be driven from use cases developed through rigorous exercise of scenarios that address all hazards, "incidents" from local/day to day through Disaster scale, and include participation from a range of emergency/disaster/public safety professions. As I said, this will be a logical design which must be adhered to. I fully agree with you that a technical design should not be attempted. The OASIS TC excels at taking the SWG artifacts and making the specification technically feasible and flexible, while meeting all practitioner requirements. I also believe some integration / common usage design will be needed between existing EDXL specs and this new one. This is another area where the TC would best serve the practitioners. I also agree that an EDXL reference info model is very important and should be formally addressed soon, and we have some ideas to contribute. I think your earlier write-up forms a great starting point for that task Best Regards, Tim