18 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.emergencyRe: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distrib...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Ham, Gary A | Dec 29, 2004 6:34 am | |
| Rex Brooks | Dec 29, 2004 10:30 am | |
| Gary Poindexter | Dec 29, 2004 10:55 am | |
| Art Botterell | Dec 29, 2004 12:43 pm | |
| Daconta, Michael | Dec 29, 2004 1:03 pm | |
| Art Botterell | Dec 29, 2004 1:14 pm | |
| Rex Brooks | Dec 29, 2004 2:51 pm | |
| Daconta, Michael | Dec 30, 2004 5:02 am | |
| Tom Merkle | Dec 30, 2004 5:57 am | |
| Carl Reed OGC | Feb 5, 2005 7:38 am | |
| Rex Brooks | Feb 5, 2005 8:04 am | |
| Elysa Jones | Feb 5, 2005 8:27 am | |
| gpoi...@wi.rr.com | Feb 5, 2005 10:06 am | |
| Art Botterell | Feb 5, 2005 1:18 pm | |
| Rex Brooks | Feb 7, 2005 7:35 am | |
| gpoi...@wi.rr.com | Feb 7, 2005 4:20 pm | |
| Robin Cover | Feb 10, 2005 5:06 pm | |
| Rex Brooks | Feb 10, 2005 6:10 pm |
| Subject: | Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | gpoi...@wi.rr.com (gpoi...@wi.rr.com) | |
| Date: | Feb 5, 2005 10:06:21 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.emergency | |
If you are going to evaluate and contrast approaches you might want to also look at the Department of Navy, XML Naming and Design Rules (DON NDR). It is supposed to be available on the DON CIO's web site. If not, I can provide a copy.
I find the DON NDR approach to be much more flexible and logical than the gjxdm monster schema approach. I also believe it would be more consistent with the work of this TC. I proposed a similar organizational structure for the gjxdm after the initial pre-release.
gary
----- Original Message ----- From: Elysa Jones <ejo...@warningsystems.com> Date: Saturday, February 5, 2005 10:30 am Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
Glad to hear about the comments from OGC. Either way or both is fine for getting them out. As EM-TC chair, I have been invited to a couple of meetings with the Justice folks during the week of NEMA (Feb11- 17). The data issues will be on the agenda for a meeting with DHS-DM, EIC, Justice and others Feb 16-17. Your comments will be helpful. Thanks, Elysa
At 10:03 AM 2/5/2005, Rex Brooks wrote:
Hi Carl,
I think that if you send the comments to the EM TC mailing list, all of us in this group will get it, but what I would do in addition is to put the comments in the body of the message and then upload the document separately to the TC document repository so that we have two ways of accessing it and referring to it.
Regards, Rex
At 07:28 AM 2/5/2005, Carl Reed OGC wrote:
I have received some very good comments on GJXDM from some OGC members. They have asked me to bundle the comments up and pass them on. I was wondering what the best mechanism would be to properly share these comments with the GJXDM folks?
Thanks for any guidance.
Carl
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daconta, Michael" <Mich...@dhs.gov> To: <re...@starbourne.com>; <ac...@incident.com>; "Daconta, Michael" <Mich...@dhs.gov>; <emer...@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 6:02 AM Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
Hi Everyone, I will email the group later with more thoughts on GJXDM. In general, I agree with Rex's position below. My concern I expressed yesterday was because I have seen it many times before where groups favor invention over reuse. I know the GJXDM is not perfect but I also believe it is well worth the effort to fix, improve and reuse it.
-------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message----- From: Rex Brooks <re...@starbourne.com> To: Art Botterell <ac...@incident.com>; Daconta, Michael <Mich...@dhs.gov>; emer...@lists.oasis-open.org <emer...@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wed Dec 29 18:53:42 2004 Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
Just to add my $.02 a bit further, I don't think there is much
chance>>>of us adopting a "not-invented-here" parochialism. Since a few of us
are trudging through the entire GJXDM to discover what and where the differences are with the work we've done so far, I suspect that we will most likely recommend best practices for implementors to use the appropriate namespaced term. To do that we must first do the diligence of comprehensive comparison so we can then look at similarities, duplications and differences and make our recommendations.
And just to add a bit more, while I am keeping my mind open to alternatives, I suspect we will end up settling on the use of an ontological approach to making our recommendations: for uses in inontology/taxonomy x, use schema a, for uses in ontology/taxonomy y, use b, etc. I am personally in favor of using existing work
whereever>>>it doesn't require too many extensions to cover the requirements we
have scoped for the particular piece of work.
Ciao, Rex..
At 1:14 PM -0800 12/29/04, Art Botterell wrote:
Michael, it's not my intent to disturb you. However, I assume
you'd>>>>agree that there's also a risk in trying to force what may prove to
be unlike concepts into like boxes just for short-term convenience.>>>> We need to look carefully at the realities of the real-world applications and processes before reflexively adopting prior art just because "it was there first." I'm sure you're not suggesting the latter approach. Nor have I ever objected to reuse where it's appropriate.
- Art
At 4:04 PM -0500 12/29/04, Daconta, Michael wrote:
This email thread is disturbing... I would hope this TC can avoid the "not invented here syndrome" and focus on reusing schema elements where the concepts are equivalent or can be aligned.
-------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message----- From: Art Botterell <ac...@incident.com> To: emer...@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency@lists.oasis- open.org>>>>>>Sent: Wed Dec 29 15:43:52 2004 Subject: Re: [emergency] GJXDM vs EDXL Distribution isses
At 9:34 AM -0500 12/29/04, Ham, Gary A wrote:
To be GJXDM compliant we would probably have to change the
"eventType">>>>>>to something more akin to "EmergencyEventTypeCode"...
I'm not sure whether "compliant" is the right criterion. Our functional goal is "compatible"... framing it in terms of
compliance>>>>>transforms a technical issue into a political one. I'm not sure
that's either necessary or wise.
Not necessary because we have the mechanism of namespaces to
allow>>>>>domain-specific element design choices to be made "close to the
ground," nearer to functional concerns and farther from bureaucratic>>>>>ones. It gives us a viable alternative to the grand-unified-data-model-of-everything approach, which I'm afraid may be self-defeating in its scope.
And not wise for several reasons:
1) Adopting a stance of "compliance" to one user group... in this case, the justice community... necessarily distances us a bit
from>>>>>others... fire, transportation, health, etc. While I realize that
Justice is ascendant in post-9/11 America, we're part of an international standards organization and those of us who've been at this for awhile have seen these trends shift back and forth over the decades.
2) There's a learning curve here. As Gary points out, just
because>>>>>the GJXDM was the earliest and largest doesn't mean it got everything
right. We need to leave the door open for learning and
improvement.>>>>>(After all, the US had the first color television standard in the
world... and as a result spent the next forty years looking at the worst color tv pictures in the world.)
3) As mentioned above, the wider the scope of a data model, the more technical and political inertia it accumulates. Keeping a degree of compartmentalization lends flexibility, so long as there's a mechanism (e.g., namespaces) for preventing collisions.
Now I'm not arguing against adopting an ISO 11179-based naming scheme. I'm just suggesting that we ought to think carefully and explicitly before slipping into an assumption that we're somehow obliged to comply with some other group's scheme.
- Art
-- Art Botterell Common Alerting Protocol Program Manager Partnership for Public Warning www.PartnershipForPublicWarning.org (707) 750-1006
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-
open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.>>>>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-
open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.>>>
-- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com Email: re...@starbourne.com Tel: 510-849-2309
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-
open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.>>>
Rex Brooks President, CEO, Starbourne Communications Design Executive Director, Humanmarkup.org, Inc. 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 510-849-2309
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis- open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis- open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.