Draft Meeting Notes from the em-tc telecon Date: June 19, 2012



Download 14.58 Kb.
Date conversion25.05.2016
Size14.58 Kb.
Draft Meeting Notes from the EM-TC Telecon

Date: June 19, 2012

Next meeting: July 3, 2012 Telecon

A quorum was in attendance.




  1. Attendance




Doug Allport

Patti Aymond

William Bowen

Rex Brooks

Charlene Duncans

Tim Grapes

Gary Ham

Werner Joerg

Camille Osterloh

Gary Timm

Jeff Waters

Brian Wilkins




  1. Jeff conducted the meeting in Elysa’s absence.

  2. Meeting notes for June 5 were reviewed. Gary Timm made and Rex seconded a motion to accept them as drafted. All agreed.

  3. DHS S&T funding for EDXL Standards work. Elysa relayed that she continues to address this topic and a discussion of the members ensued. Others provided input as follows:

    1. Doug reported that he attended meetings with CSS that was also attended by the undersecretary for DHS S&T, Robert Griffin. He was clearly in support of EDXL standards work but commented that he is leery of jumping into efforts that would take years to sell. Doug took the opportunity to introduce the TC Chair, Elysa and recommended a following up. Doug further explained that Rober is the Director for the first responder community under a recent reorganization. The EDXL standards fall under his leadership. The topic of EDXL vs NIEM was also discussed. It is hoped a way can be found for these to co-exist.

    2. Rex said both can be used and EDXL should be seen as supporting NIEM and NIEM can use EDXL.

    3. Gary Ham discussed how one could take NIEM IEPD and wrap in DE for transport.

    4. Rex pointed out how the NCOIC pattern point illustrates how the standards can be used for their particular type of message. They will add something that can be used with NIEM. There is similar work going on in Europe and in NATO.

    5. Jeff agreed and added that it is not productive for these to be seen as competitive. He asked if anyone knew of any NIEM efforts that are close to duplicating the EM-TC standards. Doug mentioned hearing of “NIEMifying” CAP during some discussions. It came up in the discussions with Robert Griffin. He wanted to be able to show a complimentary use of CAP and NIEM for possibly an easy win in demonstrating that these can co-exist. Doug has discussed this with Elysa. We talked about showing a NIEM adapter mapping between IPAWS and Canadian profiles.

    6. Gary Ham said that NIEM is not a standard. They should take the NIEM model and use the IEPD process to define an exchange then put it through a standard process. People seem to misunderstand. If you have an external standard that works, just use it. If you don’t have one, then follow IEPD process. That is how it was designed. You can also wrap external standards, unless that was pulled out. That is way it should be used.

    7. Rex suggested a white paper be done on the topic. Gary Ham said that had been done and Tim would have access to it. Tim agreed but added that there may be other options. Perhaps in the world of NIEM where they use the SAR (suspicious activity report) there could be a translation between that and CAP as they have a similar purpose. Rex said that sounded good and Jeff said they could demo a mapping between one to the other. Tim said that rather than “NIEMifying” the standard this would show how they work together and not require users to have to change user interface.

    8. Jeff suggested that we need to talk in terms of a clear distinction between EM standards and a Federal model for exchanges that are not satisfied by external standards. There is a clear distinction and purpose for each. We could develop white papers, diagrams, and translations to show the difference. Is it education or people who run these different efforts aren’t telling the same story.

    9. Tim offered that it comes from relationships between entities. There has been no driving need for S&T and NIEM to interoperate. Without that need, it is difficult to get them both to the table. There is a model to show a win-win for everyone. If there is an existing standard that suits your needs, use it. If not, use the IEPD process. Something in between can use and extend a standard. Look at ways to add value to both sides.

    10. Doug said he thinks Dr. Robert Griffin would be happy to help facilitate that kind of effort if it could bring an easy win to the table. Show how use NIEM adapter between two profiles may be that.

    11. Gary warned that we must make sure the term “adapter” is being used the right way. In NIEM, an adapter is a wrapper that puts NIEM attributes around existing data structures so it can be re-used in NIEM without change. This adds attributes to external structure without moving its way into it. It is not a translator between two things. Jeff responded that he understands Gary’s point. Translating between two profiles is one thing but the adapter is really to bring in one profile to NIEM and does not really enable a translation. Gary added, not as defined in NIEM.

    12. Rex suggested this be put on the agenda for perhaps the Adoption TC and have whoever is willing to work on it and put together a white paper and demonstration. Tim that was aimed at you…Tim said he did not think we need to spend a lot of time on this. He believes there is an approach to show collaboration and cooperation and he is willing to help with that participation. Rex suggested bringing this to the adoption TC, using the whitepaper that exists from Lee and doing a demonstration that shows it working. Tim agreed that it makes sense. Doug added to be sure and include Elysa in any next steps. Rex said it should be assigned to the Collateral & Documents SC to get it in the right form and published. Jeff identified an action item to for Rex to take this to the Adoption TC. Tim agreed with Doug that Elysa should take the lead with any internal to external communication. Should talk about engaging NIEM personnel to lay out this idea and perhaps work on it together. Rex and Jeff agreed and Rex will send Elysa a note.

  4. Subcommittee Reports

    1. Infrastructure SC. Jeff reported they had good meeting today. They went through the issues Don posted. Some were interesting including getting rid of Distribution reference; changing the reference from Taking Target Area, etc. A summary of the issues is in special agenda 2 or look at the minutes to see what is being suggested. They will coordinate with Brian who is on the line today on a few corrections that can be taken to Don for feedback. There is a chance to have it ready for TC review the following week. Good progress is being made getting through these last issues. If anyone has issues with the document, get in touch with Jeff.

    2. Message and Notification SC. Rex stated that SitRep out for second public review concluding July 20.

    3. Reference Information Model SC. Rex stated that people are needed at the next meeting to start on profile work. This time will be to revisit how we are using profiles in the TC especially with respect to CAP after the topic was raised at the CAP Workshop.

    4. Hospital Availability SC. No report

    5. Tracking of Emergency Patients SC. Werner reported that he now has the specification template and has begun fill it in. Rex has provided the graphic of the DOM from the spec schema Brian provided. WD01 is being assembled. Jeff congratulated the group on their progress.

  5. Other activities

    1. Tim updated the members on the coordination efforts with HL7. As intended, we continue to reach out to the HL7 organization to be part of our standards process from the beginning and through the assembly process. We hope to coordinate with HL7 to get their input and harmonize where they are the authoritative source as that will create a more relevant standard. Working with them to co-publish a report or specification is a goal. Where health care and emergency meet are involved with two of our current efforts, HAVE and TEP. They are working to establish that coordination. Tim had bad coverage and was unable to conclude the point. Jeff invited him to follow up on the next call.

    2. Doug brought up the list discussion on profiles. His group had a short meeting on this topic and will provide lessons learned to the RIM SC on the development and use of Profile and layer in Canada. One point that came up is the idea of layers being managed within OASIS. When a CAP alert is issued they often include scientific data which is often captured in parameter values. If other countries are interested, rather than each different country doing it’s own profile for this, there could be one location for these definitions (parameter name and value). That document would be an international specification and would be a complimentary document known as a “layer”. Jeff asked for clarification. Doug suggested the example that there is a layer for inclusion of event location, text specific to tweets. How Richter scale data would be put into an alert. How do we make it possible to coordinate these data in a global community? For example, the earthquake in US Richter scale in parameter value, wouldn’t it be nice if looking for exactly same value. Jeff reminded the members that the discussion of Profiles will continue in the RIM SC.

  6. With the agenda accomplished and not further business for the members, Rex made and Werner seconded a motion to adjourn. All agreed.

Respectfully submitted,


Elysa Jones, Chair

OASIS EM-TC


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page