Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
From: "Timothy Grapes" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Brian Rosen'" <[email-masked]>, "'James M. Polk'" <[email-masked]>, "'David Aylward \(Comcare\)'" <[email-masked]>, "'Art Botterell'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:29:42 -0400
List-Id: "Discussion list for Authority-to-Individuals \(Early Warning\) Emergency " <earlywarning.ietf.org>

Hi Brian,

FYI, the DE contains a ContentKeyword in the ContentObject  element which
might be a valid usage of this element in context of wrapping and
distributing a warning message.

You're correct that it doesn't define categories.  But if usage policies
were defined and then categories were to be defined, agreed to and
maintained under governance in an accessible location, ContentKeyword
provides a consistent application of those categories. 

I'm sure valid debate may ensue, but this is one reason this type of
flexibility was built into the DE.  I'm only suggesting this be considered
as an existing available solution / usage of the DE rather than discounting
it as an option up front.

Element contentKeyword
Type List and Associated Value(s)
Usage OPTIONAL, MAY use multiple
Definition The topic related to the message data and content, as it may
determine message
distribution and presentation decisions.
Comments 1. The list and associated value(s) is in the form:
<contentKeyword>
<valueListUrn>valueListUrn</valueListUrn>
<value>value</value>
</contentKeyword>
where the content of <valueListUrn> is the Uniform Resource Name of a
published
list of values and definitions, and the content of <value> is a string
(which may
represent a number) denoting the value itself.
2. Multiple instances of the <value>, MAY occur with a single <valueListUrn>
within
the <contentKeyword> container.
3. Multiple instances of <contentKeyword> MAY occur within a single
<contentObject> container.
Examples of things <contentKeyword> might be used to describe include
message
processor, event stage, resource code and response type.
Subelements
• valueListUrn
• value
Used In contentObject

Thanks,
Tim Grapes
Evolution Technologies, Inc.
An SDVOB "Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Business"
Office:    (703) 654-6075
Mobile:  (703) 304-4829
Fax:         (703) 654-6001
[email-masked]
http://www.evotecinc.com/
"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt"
- Henry J. Kaiser

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 9:06 AM
To: 'Timothy Grapes'; 'James M. Polk'; 'David Aylward (Comcare)'; 'Art
Botterell'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Many of us know all about the DE.

Of course, we really, really, really would appreciate CAP and EDXL being
brought into alignment fully.  We do wish to use CAP.  

But EDXL-DE doesn't help with this discussion of categories, because it
doesn't define them either.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:earlywarning-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Timothy Grapes
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:57 AM
> To: 'James M. Polk'; 'David Aylward (Comcare)'; 'Art Botterell';
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> 
> While valid points have been made on both sides, I do suggest that the
> EDXL-DE be reviewed against your requirements to determine how it may
> address your needs.  Without opening the hood further, it appears it
> could
> do the trick in concert with registration processes etc. and a
> distribution
> framework such  as OPEN.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim Grapes
> Evolution Technologies, Inc.
> An SDVOB "Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Business"
> Office:    (703) 654-6075
> Mobile:  (703) 304-4829
> Fax:         (703) 654-6001
> [email-masked]
> http://www.evotecinc.com/
> "When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt"
> - Henry J. Kaiser
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:58 PM
> To: David Aylward (Comcare); 'Art Botterell'; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Cc: Timothy Grapes; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> 
> All
> 
> While I might agree with the reasons you have stated for the
> vagueness of categories, I have to look at Henning's example as a why
> I don't necessarily want "all warnings" from a geography. For
> example, he rightfully stated that just because I listed Tsunami
> warnings as something I care about, I should also care about the
> chemical leaks, or Tornados in my area too.
> 
> And there's the rub - who decides what warnings I get?
> 
> If I subscribe to (conceivably) all warnings in my area, do I really
> care when Dave has falen and can't reach his beer? Is that so
> monumental to anyone else?  Local policy might dictate that yeah -
> everyone should do what it takes to get Dave his beer, but I don't
> necessarily need to care, therefore I will likely NOT want to get
> this messages.
> 
> Too many warning messages will create a "cry wolf" mode of me
> eventually believing none of them are useful, regardless of what they
> say. I just won't reach for my (whatever) device if it's just out of my
> reach.
> 
> Perhaps general categories ought to be looked at, because I think I
> can see exactly where Hannes is going, and I believe I'm in the same
> ballpark as him thinking this ought  to be a little more specific for
> subscriptions.
> 
> James
> 
> At 03:41 PM 7/12/2009, David Aylward \(Comcare\) wrote:
> >Hannes:
> >
> >That is exactly what I was talking about, but CAP was not designed for
> that.
> >It is a
> >"broadcast to the world" standard.  It is excellent for that purpose,
> but
> >not for the more refined purpose you are pursuing.
> >
> >The OASIS EDXL Distribution Element was designed for exactly that
> purpose:
> >machine to machine routing based on incident type, role and similar
> factors,
> >and primarily as Art suggests in the "wholesale", inter-organization
> world.
> >
> >
> >Organizations (and individuals connected to them) subscribe to "hear"
> about
> >incident types within certain geographies.
> >
> >We have talked in the past, Hannes, about "core services", the purpose
> of
> >them is to provision queries such as you suggest, and govern rights to
> send
> >and receive such messages.
> >
> >Lots of work has been done on these ideas outside of the message-
> specific
> >standards that they would enable.
> >
> >
> >David K. Aylward, President
> >COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
> >1351 Independence Court, SE
> >Washington, DC 20003
> >202.255.3215 (mobile)
> >202.295.0136 (office)
> >202.521.4047 (fax)
> >[email-masked]
> >
> >This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which
> it is
> >addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or privileged
> >information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
> >recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take
> action
> >relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent
> reply,
> >should be deleted or destroyed.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email-masked]
> >[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Art
> Botterell
> >Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
> >To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> >
> >I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the near term,
> >to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than to topical
> >categories.  That pushes the question of message authoritativeness /
> >jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and into the
> >larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination,
> >where it more properly belongs.
> >
> >Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be guaranteed to
> >be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical disconnects"
> >leading to missed alerts either because of differing interpretations
> >of categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived
> >categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the
> >unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision seems to
> >be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether even that is
> >more helpful than it is risky.
> >
> >- Art
> >
> >
> >On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >
> > > I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my
> > > question.
> > >
> > > If you only set the value in the category field for the purpose of
> > > human
> > > consumption then there is not really an interoperability issue.
> > >
> > > Now, with the work on
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> > > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to
> > > "subscribe"
> > > to certain type of events: you might indicate something like
> > > location and
> > > the type of events you are interested in.
> > >
> > > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently matters. With the
> > > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to come up with
> a
> > > description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
> > >
> > > Ciao
> > > Hannes
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.
> This
> >list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency
> Management TC.
> >Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
> >http://www.oasis-
> open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
> >CAP-list mailing list
> >[email-masked]
> >http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
> >
> >This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
> >particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >earlywarning mailing list
> >[email-masked]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> 
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Timothy Grapes'" <[email-masked]>, "'James M. Polk'" <[email-masked]>, "'David Aylward \(Comcare\)'" <[email-masked]>, "'Art Botterell'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:06:23 -0400
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Many of us know all about the DE.

Of course, we really, really, really would appreciate CAP and EDXL being
brought into alignment fully.  We do wish to use CAP.  

But EDXL-DE doesn't help with this discussion of categories, because it
doesn't define them either.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:earlywarning-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Timothy Grapes
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:57 AM
> To: 'James M. Polk'; 'David Aylward (Comcare)'; 'Art Botterell';
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> 
> While valid points have been made on both sides, I do suggest that the
> EDXL-DE be reviewed against your requirements to determine how it may
> address your needs.  Without opening the hood further, it appears it
> could
> do the trick in concert with registration processes etc. and a
> distribution
> framework such  as OPEN.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim Grapes
> Evolution Technologies, Inc.
> An SDVOB "Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Business"
> Office:    (703) 654-6075
> Mobile:  (703) 304-4829
> Fax:         (703) 654-6001
> [email-masked]
> http://www.evotecinc.com/
> "When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt"
> - Henry J. Kaiser
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:58 PM
> To: David Aylward (Comcare); 'Art Botterell'; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Cc: Timothy Grapes; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> 
> All
> 
> While I might agree with the reasons you have stated for the
> vagueness of categories, I have to look at Henning's example as a why
> I don't necessarily want "all warnings" from a geography. For
> example, he rightfully stated that just because I listed Tsunami
> warnings as something I care about, I should also care about the
> chemical leaks, or Tornados in my area too.
> 
> And there's the rub - who decides what warnings I get?
> 
> If I subscribe to (conceivably) all warnings in my area, do I really
> care when Dave has falen and can't reach his beer? Is that so
> monumental to anyone else?  Local policy might dictate that yeah -
> everyone should do what it takes to get Dave his beer, but I don't
> necessarily need to care, therefore I will likely NOT want to get
> this messages.
> 
> Too many warning messages will create a "cry wolf" mode of me
> eventually believing none of them are useful, regardless of what they
> say. I just won't reach for my (whatever) device if it's just out of my
> reach.
> 
> Perhaps general categories ought to be looked at, because I think I
> can see exactly where Hannes is going, and I believe I'm in the same
> ballpark as him thinking this ought  to be a little more specific for
> subscriptions.
> 
> James
> 
> At 03:41 PM 7/12/2009, David Aylward \(Comcare\) wrote:
> >Hannes:
> >
> >That is exactly what I was talking about, but CAP was not designed for
> that.
> >It is a
> >"broadcast to the world" standard.  It is excellent for that purpose,
> but
> >not for the more refined purpose you are pursuing.
> >
> >The OASIS EDXL Distribution Element was designed for exactly that
> purpose:
> >machine to machine routing based on incident type, role and similar
> factors,
> >and primarily as Art suggests in the "wholesale", inter-organization
> world.
> >
> >
> >Organizations (and individuals connected to them) subscribe to "hear"
> about
> >incident types within certain geographies.
> >
> >We have talked in the past, Hannes, about "core services", the purpose
> of
> >them is to provision queries such as you suggest, and govern rights to
> send
> >and receive such messages.
> >
> >Lots of work has been done on these ideas outside of the message-
> specific
> >standards that they would enable.
> >
> >
> >David K. Aylward, President
> >COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
> >1351 Independence Court, SE
> >Washington, DC 20003
> >202.255.3215 (mobile)
> >202.295.0136 (office)
> >202.521.4047 (fax)
> >[email-masked]
> >
> >This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which
> it is
> >addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or privileged
> >information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
> >recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take
> action
> >relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent
> reply,
> >should be deleted or destroyed.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email-masked]
> >[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Art
> Botterell
> >Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
> >To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> >
> >I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the near term,
> >to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than to topical
> >categories.  That pushes the question of message authoritativeness /
> >jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and into the
> >larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination,
> >where it more properly belongs.
> >
> >Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be guaranteed to
> >be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical disconnects"
> >leading to missed alerts either because of differing interpretations
> >of categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived
> >categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the
> >unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision seems to
> >be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether even that is
> >more helpful than it is risky.
> >
> >- Art
> >
> >
> >On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >
> > > I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my
> > > question.
> > >
> > > If you only set the value in the category field for the purpose of
> > > human
> > > consumption then there is not really an interoperability issue.
> > >
> > > Now, with the work on
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> > > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to
> > > "subscribe"
> > > to certain type of events: you might indicate something like
> > > location and
> > > the type of events you are interested in.
> > >
> > > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently matters. With the
> > > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to come up with
> a
> > > description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
> > >
> > > Ciao
> > > Hannes
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.
> This
> >list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency
> Management TC.
> >Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
> >http://www.oasis-
> open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
> >CAP-list mailing list
> >[email-masked]
> >http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
> >
> >This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
> >particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >earlywarning mailing list
> >[email-masked]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> 
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:39:18 -0400
From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Organization: Netmagic Associates
To: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Cc: IAEM List <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], EM Groups <[email-masked]>, Bob Robinson <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
> ('broadband' and 'reach to underserved').  The FCC was also charged with
> drafting a 'national broadband plan'.  
> 	FCC published a Notice of Inquiry, for which the comment period just
> closed last week.  About the first comment they sought was a definition
>   

Actually, a 25 June Order extended the Reply Comment date to
21 July.  So most Replies have not been filed, and you still have
time.

The proceeding is Docket 09-51, and you can access all
the material in the proceeding using ECFS.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

--tony

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:25:07 +0300
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Hi Art, 

~snip~

#	What we're really talking about here seems to be how to apply SIP to
urgent one-to-many notifications.  Maybe if it were explicit that narrower,
more technical goal would be more tractable.

For me the scope of the work is quite narrow.

I re-wrote the requirements, terminology and framework document
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-norreys-ecrit-authority2individuals-requireme
nts-03.txt
based also on your feedback to re-scope the work. 

Then, there is the SIP CAP document 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-04
(It needs to get re-written a bit to better incorporate the new terminology.
Maybe requesting specific warning categories is a bad idea and needs to be
deleted.)

There is also a document
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning-01.txt that
may be needed to discover servers dynamically. But this is clearly more into
the future.

Looking at the XMPP work
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0127.html
we could get away with only a single document, namely the SIP CAP stuff.

I would scope the initial work in that way. 

Ciao
Hannes	

	- Art

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:27:02 +0300
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Hey Carl, 

>Another touch point is that the European community is defining 
>and prototyping an event based alerting architecture that is 
>coordinated with the INSPIRE (pan-European spatial data 
>infrastructure) activity. The architecture is payload agnostic 
>and can support any number of alerting payload encodings (CAP, 
>GeoRSS, Atom based, other).

I like the idea of carrying generic alerting payloads. This is probably
something we should pick up. 

Ciao
Hannes

>
>Carl
>
>
>
> > Hi Keith,
>>
>>>Firstly, I am not sure the identification of the types of warnings I 
>>>wish to subscribe to, and the nature of the warning, are necessarily 
>>>one and the same thing, yet that seems to be assumed by the drafts.
>>
>> If you want to subscribe to certain alerts then there better 
>should be 
>> a relationship otherwise the point of including any 
>information about 
>> desired alerts is a bit mood.
>>
>> Henning was a bit doubtful of the benefit of subscribing to separate 
>> categories of alerts. Someone else suggested that this 
>should be left 
>> to a manual procedure of picking the right server that has a certain 
>> type of alert messages to distribute, e.g., weather alerts.
>>
>>>
>>>Secondly, surely we should be seeking some alignment of 
>warning types 
>>>between the different delivery mechanisms.
>>
>> This is not the feedback I got from others.
>>
>>>I
>>>note that we have lists in
>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-04 and 
>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning
>>>-01 that are aligned with each other, but bear no relationship with 
>>>those being defined in other bodies.
>>
>> Well. I took these terms from the categories in the CAP 
>specification.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>For example 3GPP TS 22.268 defines the umbrella for warnings 
>provided 
>>>by the cell broadcast service
>>>
>>>http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/22268.htm
>>>
>>>This defines a structure that incorporates at least ETWS for the far 
>>>east, and CMAS for north america. Europe is still working on a 
>>>coordinated set of requirements.
>>>
>>>and you will find the message identifiers for these two in 3GPP TS 
>>>23.041
>>>
>>>http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23041.htm
>>>
>>>Including recent expansions which have not yet appeared in the 
>>>published document these come down to:
>>>
>>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for earthquake warning message.
>>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for tsunami warning message.
>>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for earthquake and tsunami combined 
>>>warning message.
>>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for test message.
>>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for messages related to other emergency 
>>>types.
>>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for future extension.
>>
>> Thanks for these pointers. Interesting to see that there are 
>different 
>> categories being used compared to the CAP work.
>>
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>>>regards
>>>
>>>Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email-masked]
>>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:58 AM
>>>> To: David Aylward (Comcare); 'Art Botterell'; 
>[email-masked]; 
>>>> [email-masked]
>>>> Cc: Timothy Grapes; [email-masked]
>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>>>>
>>>> All
>>>>
>>>> While I might agree with the reasons you have stated for the
>>>vagueness
>>>> of categories, I have to look at Henning's example as a 
>why I don't 
>>>> necessarily want "all warnings" from a geography. For example, he 
>>>> rightfully stated that just because I listed Tsunami warnings as 
>>>> something I care about, I should also care about the 
>chemical leaks, 
>>>> or Tornados in my area too.
>>>>
>>>> And there's the rub - who decides what warnings I get?
>>>>
>>>> If I subscribe to (conceivably) all warnings in my area, 
>do I really 
>>>> care when Dave has falen and can't reach his beer? Is that so 
>>>> monumental to anyone else?  Local policy might dictate that yeah - 
>>>> everyone should do what it takes to get Dave his beer, but I don't 
>>>> necessarily need to care, therefore I will likely NOT want
>>>to get this
>>>> messages.
>>>>
>>>> Too many warning messages will create a "cry wolf" mode of me 
>>>> eventually believing none of them are useful, regardless of
>>>what they
>>>> say. I just won't reach for my (whatever) device if it's 
>just out of 
>>>> my reach.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps general categories ought to be looked at, because 
>I think I 
>>>> can see exactly where Hannes is going, and I believe I'm 
>in the same 
>>>> ballpark as him thinking this ought  to be a little more
>>>specific for
>>>> subscriptions.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> At 03:41 PM 7/12/2009, David Aylward \(Comcare\) wrote:
>>>> >Hannes:
>>>> >
>>>> >That is exactly what I was talking about, but CAP was not
>>>> designed for that.
>>>> >It is a
>>>> >"broadcast to the world" standard.  It is excellent for that
>>>> purpose,
>>>> >but not for the more refined purpose you are pursuing.
>>>> >
>>>> >The OASIS EDXL Distribution Element was designed for exactly
>>>> that purpose:
>>>> >machine to machine routing based on incident type, role 
>and similar 
>>>> >factors, and primarily as Art suggests in the "wholesale",
>>>> inter-organization world.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >Organizations (and individuals connected to them) subscribe
>>>> to "hear"
>>>> >about incident types within certain geographies.
>>>> >
>>>> >We have talked in the past, Hannes, about "core services",
>>>> the purpose
>>>> >of them is to provision queries such as you suggest, and
>>>> govern rights
>>>> >to send and receive such messages.
>>>> >
>>>> >Lots of work has been done on these ideas outside of the 
>>>> >message-specific standards that they would enable.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >David K. Aylward, President
>>>> >COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
>>>> >1351 Independence Court, SE
>>>> >Washington, DC 20003
>>>> >202.255.3215 (mobile)
>>>> >202.295.0136 (office)
>>>> >202.521.4047 (fax)
>>>> >[email-masked]
>>>> >
>>>> >This communication is intended for the use of the recipient
>>>> to which it
>>>> >is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or
>>>> privileged
>>>> >information. Please contact us immediately if you are not
>>>> the intended
>>>> >recipient of this communication, and do not copy,
>>>> distribute, or take
>>>> >action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or 
>>>> >subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>>> >From: [email-masked]
>>>> >[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Art Botterell
>>>> >Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
>>>> >To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>>>> >Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>>>> >
>>>> >I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the
>>>> near term,
>>>> >to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than
>>>> to topical
>>>> >categories.  That pushes the question of message
>>>authoritativeness /
>>>> >jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and
>>>> into the
>>>> >larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional
>>>coordination,
>>>> >where it more properly belongs.
>>>> >
>>>> >Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be
>>>> guaranteed to
>>>> >be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical 
>disconnects"
>>>> >leading to missed alerts either because of differing
>>>> interpretations of
>>>> >categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our 
>preconceived 
>>>> >categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the 
>>>> >unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision
>>>> seems to
>>>> >be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether
>>>even that is
>>>> >more helpful than it is risky.
>>>> >
>>>> >- Art
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > I should provide a bit more feedback about the 
>background to my 
>>>> > > question.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > If you only set the value in the category field for the
>>>> purpose of
>>>> > > human consumption then there is not really an interoperability 
>>>> > > issue.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Now, with the work on
>>>> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
>>>> > > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that 
>allows you to 
>>>> > > "subscribe"
>>>> > > to certain type of events: you might indicate something like 
>>>> > > location and the type of events you are interested in.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently
>>>> matters. With the
>>>> > > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to
>>>> come up with a
>>>> > > description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Ciao
>>>> > > Hannes
>>>> >
>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>> >This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting
>>>Protocol.
>>>> >This list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS
>>>> Emergency Management TC.
>>>> >Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at 
>>>> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abb
>>>> rev=emerge
>>>> >ncy
>>>> >CAP-list mailing list
>>>> >[email-masked]
>>>> >http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>>>> >
>>>> >This list is not for announcements, advertising or 
>advocacy of any 
>>>> >particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>> >earlywarning mailing list
>>>> >[email-masked]
>>>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>>> [email-masked]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>earlywarning mailing list
>>>[email-masked]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>earlywarning mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:13:06 -0700
From: Art Botterell <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--001636164b37335a4f046ec1abf9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:44 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> CAP was originally developed based primarily on US requirements and as
> such may not reflect non-US regional considerations, policies, etc.

Um... I'm not sure that's entirely correct.  The basis of the CAP design was
social science research on warning message effectiveness, and both that body
of research and the membership of the original CAP Working Group were quite
international.

It's true that a lot of the application of CAP has taken place in the U.S.,
and that's a constant concern.  However, we've managed to keep CAP
international enough that the ITU was able to endorse it (as recommendation
x.1303).

Profiles, as long at they're truly profiles (which is to say, strict subsets
of the CAP specification) enable different communities to define local
usages without breaking basic compatibility with other CAP implementations.
Again, it's been a struggle sometimes to prevent profiles from becoming
localized extensions of the standard, which wouldn't be interoperable, but I
think we've done reasonably well so far.

I'd also suggest that it may be confusing to talk about CAP in the same
breath with GeoRSS or Atom.  CAP is a content structure, while RSS and Atom
are indexing schemes that themselves refer to other content, including
sometimes CAP.

- Art

--001636164b37335a4f046ec1abf9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:44 AM,  <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
CAP was originally developed based primarily on US requirements and as<br>
such may not reflect non-US regional considerations, policies, etc. </blockquote><div><br>Um... I&#39;m not sure that&#39;s entirely correct.  The basis of the CAP design was social science research on warning message effectiveness, and both that body of research and the membership of the original CAP Working Group were quite international.<br>
<br>It&#39;s true that a lot of the application of CAP has taken place in the U.S., and that&#39;s a constant concern.  However, we&#39;ve managed to keep CAP international enough that the ITU was able to endorse it (as recommendation x.1303).<br>
<br>Profiles, as long at they&#39;re truly profiles (which is to say, strict subsets of the CAP specification) enable different communities to define local usages without breaking basic compatibility with other CAP implementations.  Again, it&#39;s been a struggle sometimes to prevent profiles from becoming localized extensions of the standard, which wouldn&#39;t be interoperable, but I think we&#39;ve done reasonably well so far.<br>
<br>I&#39;d also suggest that it may be confusing to talk about CAP in the same breath with GeoRSS or Atom.  CAP is a content structure, while RSS and Atom are indexing schemes that themselves refer to other content, including sometimes CAP.<br>
 </div>- Art<br></div><br>

--001636164b37335a4f046ec1abf9--

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:02:19 -0700
From: Art Botterell <[email-masked]>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--0016e644cc6e977a04046ec18422
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>  From my citizen-to-authority emergency services experience I can tell you
> that you cannot create such a
> "single community" regardless of how much work you spend.

I think that's right.  Emergency services don't function as a separate
community, but rather as a facet of the larger communities and cultures they
serve.  Notions like "authority" and even "emergency" are constructed very
differently in different places and in different contexts.

(For an example of how subtle and controversial even seemingly simple
notions of emergency response can be, see my blog entry on standards of
practice for public warning at <http://www.incident.com/blog>... I'm
presenting it at the Natural Hazards Workshop in Boulder Colorado this
week.  Note also that "public warning" in the tactical sense and "early
warning" of significant events are themselves quite different topics.)

What we're really talking about here seems to be how to apply SIP to urgent
one-to-many notifications.  Maybe if it were explicit that narrower, more
technical goal would be more tractable.

- Art

--0016e644cc6e977a04046ec18422
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
 From my citizen-to-authority emergency services experience I can tell you that you cannot create such a<br>
&quot;single community&quot; regardless of how much work you spend.</blockquote><br></div>I think that&#39;s right.  Emergency services don&#39;t function as a separate community, but rather as a facet of the larger communities and cultures they serve.  Notions like &quot;authority&quot; and even &quot;emergency&quot; are constructed very differently in different places and in different contexts.<br>
<br>(For an example of how subtle and controversial even seemingly simple notions of emergency response can be, see my blog entry on standards of practice for public warning at &lt;<a href="http://www.incident.com/blog">http://www.incident.com/blog</a>&gt;... I&#39;m presenting it at the Natural Hazards Workshop in Boulder Colorado this week.  Note also that &quot;public warning&quot; in the tactical sense and &quot;early warning&quot; of significant events are themselves quite different topics.)<br>
<br>What we&#39;re really talking about here seems to be how to apply SIP to urgent one-to-many notifications.  Maybe if it were explicit that narrower, more technical goal would be more tractable.<br><br>- Art<br><br>

--0016e644cc6e977a04046ec18422--

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:44:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
To: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Importance: Normal
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

CAP was originally developed based primarily on US requirements and as
such may not reflect non-US regional considerations, policies, etc. This
may be why groups outside the US are developing profiles with extensions -
which is not necessarily good for interoperability. That said, there is
some coordination of these activities occurring in OASIS as part of the
CAP profiling and CAP 2.0 activity.

I am sure Art can add more of a perspective on this.

Another touch point is that the European community is defining and
prototyping an event based alerting architecture that is coordinated with
the INSPIRE (pan-European spatial data infrastructure) activity. The
architecture is payload agnostic and can support any number of alerting
payload encodings (CAP, GeoRSS, Atom based, other).

Carl

 > Hi Keith,
>
>>Firstly, I am not sure the identification of the types of
>>warnings I wish to subscribe to, and the nature of the
>>warning, are necessarily one and the same thing, yet that
>>seems to be assumed by the drafts.
>
> If you want to subscribe to certain alerts then there better should be a
> relationship otherwise the point of including any information about
> desired
> alerts is a bit mood.
>
> Henning was a bit doubtful of the benefit of subscribing to separate
> categories of alerts. Someone else suggested that this should be left to a
> manual procedure of picking the right server that has a certain type of
> alert messages to distribute, e.g., weather alerts.
>
>>
>>Secondly, surely we should be seeking some alignment of
>>warning types between the different delivery mechanisms.
>
> This is not the feedback I got from others.
>
>>I
>>note that we have lists in
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-04 and
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning
>>-01 that are aligned with each other, but bear no relationship
>>with those being defined in other bodies.
>
> Well. I took these terms from the categories in the CAP specification.
>
>
>>
>>For example 3GPP TS 22.268 defines the umbrella for warnings
>>provided by the cell broadcast service
>>
>>http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/22268.htm
>>
>>This defines a structure that incorporates at least ETWS for
>>the far east, and CMAS for north america. Europe is still
>>working on a coordinated set of requirements.
>>
>>and you will find the message identifiers for these two in
>>3GPP TS 23.041
>>
>>http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23041.htm
>>
>>Including recent expansions which have not yet appeared in the
>>published document these come down to:
>>
>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for earthquake warning message.
>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for tsunami warning message.
>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for earthquake and tsunami
>>combined warning message.
>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for test message.
>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for messages related to other
>>emergency types.
>>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for future extension.
>
> Thanks for these pointers. Interesting to see that there are different
> categories being used compared to the CAP work.
>
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>>regards
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email-masked]
>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
>>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:58 AM
>>> To: David Aylward (Comcare); 'Art Botterell'; [email-masked];
>>> [email-masked]
>>> Cc: Timothy Grapes; [email-masked]
>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>>>
>>> All
>>>
>>> While I might agree with the reasons you have stated for the
>>vagueness
>>> of categories, I have to look at Henning's example as a why I don't
>>> necessarily want "all warnings" from a geography. For example, he
>>> rightfully stated that just because I listed Tsunami warnings as
>>> something I care about, I should also care about the chemical leaks,
>>> or Tornados in my area too.
>>>
>>> And there's the rub - who decides what warnings I get?
>>>
>>> If I subscribe to (conceivably) all warnings in my area, do I really
>>> care when Dave has falen and can't reach his beer? Is that so
>>> monumental to anyone else?  Local policy might dictate that yeah -
>>> everyone should do what it takes to get Dave his beer, but I don't
>>> necessarily need to care, therefore I will likely NOT want
>>to get this
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> Too many warning messages will create a "cry wolf" mode of me
>>> eventually believing none of them are useful, regardless of
>>what they
>>> say. I just won't reach for my (whatever) device if it's just out of
>>> my reach.
>>>
>>> Perhaps general categories ought to be looked at, because I think I
>>> can see exactly where Hannes is going, and I believe I'm in the same
>>> ballpark as him thinking this ought  to be a little more
>>specific for
>>> subscriptions.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> At 03:41 PM 7/12/2009, David Aylward \(Comcare\) wrote:
>>> >Hannes:
>>> >
>>> >That is exactly what I was talking about, but CAP was not
>>> designed for that.
>>> >It is a
>>> >"broadcast to the world" standard.  It is excellent for that
>>> purpose,
>>> >but not for the more refined purpose you are pursuing.
>>> >
>>> >The OASIS EDXL Distribution Element was designed for exactly
>>> that purpose:
>>> >machine to machine routing based on incident type, role and similar
>>> >factors, and primarily as Art suggests in the "wholesale",
>>> inter-organization world.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Organizations (and individuals connected to them) subscribe
>>> to "hear"
>>> >about incident types within certain geographies.
>>> >
>>> >We have talked in the past, Hannes, about "core services",
>>> the purpose
>>> >of them is to provision queries such as you suggest, and
>>> govern rights
>>> >to send and receive such messages.
>>> >
>>> >Lots of work has been done on these ideas outside of the
>>> >message-specific standards that they would enable.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >David K. Aylward, President
>>> >COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
>>> >1351 Independence Court, SE
>>> >Washington, DC 20003
>>> >202.255.3215 (mobile)
>>> >202.295.0136 (office)
>>> >202.521.4047 (fax)
>>> >[email-masked]
>>> >
>>> >This communication is intended for the use of the recipient
>>> to which it
>>> >is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or
>>> privileged
>>> >information. Please contact us immediately if you are not
>>> the intended
>>> >recipient of this communication, and do not copy,
>>> distribute, or take
>>> >action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or
>>> >subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: [email-masked]
>>> >[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>>> Art Botterell
>>> >Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
>>> >To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>>> >Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>>> >
>>> >I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the
>>> near term,
>>> >to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than
>>> to topical
>>> >categories.  That pushes the question of message
>>authoritativeness /
>>> >jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and
>>> into the
>>> >larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional
>>coordination,
>>> >where it more properly belongs.
>>> >
>>> >Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be
>>> guaranteed to
>>> >be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical disconnects"
>>> >leading to missed alerts either because of differing
>>> interpretations of
>>> >categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived
>>> >categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the
>>> >unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision
>>> seems to
>>> >be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether
>>even that is
>>> >more helpful than it is risky.
>>> >
>>> >- Art
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my
>>> > > question.
>>> > >
>>> > > If you only set the value in the category field for the
>>> purpose of
>>> > > human consumption then there is not really an interoperability
>>> > > issue.
>>> > >
>>> > > Now, with the work on
>>> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
>>> > > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to
>>> > > "subscribe"
>>> > > to certain type of events: you might indicate something like
>>> > > location and the type of events you are interested in.
>>> > >
>>> > > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently
>>> matters. With the
>>> > > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to
>>> come up with a
>>> > > description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
>>> > >
>>> > > Ciao
>>> > > Hannes
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting
>>Protocol.
>>> >This list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS
>>> Emergency Management TC.
>>> >Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
>>> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abb
>>> rev=emerge
>>> >ncy
>>> >CAP-list mailing list
>>> >[email-masked]
>>> >http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>>> >
>>> >This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
>>> >particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >earlywarning mailing list
>>> >[email-masked]
>>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>> [email-masked]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>earlywarning mailing list
>>[email-masked]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, "'DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:39:52 +0300
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Hi Tony, 

>DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>> Firstly, I am not sure the identification of the types of 
>warnings I wish to subscribe to, and the nature of the 
>warning, are necessarily one and the same thing, yet that 
>seems to be assumed by the drafts. 
>>   
>These are all subjects that were discussed at some length at 
>the recent Geneva workshop on alert identifiers.

Are there meeting minutes available from the workshop?

>  It's also 
>apparent that there are many active user communities worldwide 
>who have evolved their implementations, secretariats, and 
>administrative processes.  The WMO has its own ecosystem based 
>on international agreements and has served as a point of 
>convergence - especially with Eliot Christian's presence.
>
>Somehow the dialogue on this list seems disconnected from this 
>larger active global ecosystem.  It's not clear what you do 
>about this, but the "they should come here" approach will not work.

What specific part do you think is disconnected from the "global ecosystem"?

As we have learned already from the previous discussion about the emergency
services categories there is no single overall community to talk to, as this
community seems to be quite fragmented. From my citizen-to-authority
emergency services experience I can tell you that you cannot create such a
"single community" regardless of how much work you spend. 

Ciao
Hannes

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:18:03 -0400
From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Organization: Netmagic Associates
To: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi Hannes,
> Are there meeting minutes available from the workshop?
>   
All docs are at
<http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/ISS/Meetings/WIS-CAP_Geneva2009/DocPlan.html>
The output is Doc. 4.1
> What specific part do you think is disconnected from the "global
> ecosystem"?
User communities and implementors.  These are active, globally
distributed communities that seem to have their own networks of
communication and collaboration.  Many are not in the "West."
Even in West, they are stovepiped in different agencies and disciplines.

I appreciate the challenge, as my Q.4/17 standards group in ITU-T is
responsible for the international version of the CAP Standard, X.1303,
including the ASN.1 translation, and it's constantly a "wack a mole"
effort of keeping track of who is doing what.
> As we have learned already from the previous discussion about the emergency
> services categories there is no single overall community to talk to, as this
> community seems to be quite fragmented. From my citizen-to-authority
> emergency services experience I can tell you that you cannot create such a
> "single community" regardless of how much work you spend. 
>   
Yes and no.  The authority-to-citizen realm has been around for
many decades, and threads through countless generic and specialized
local, national, regional, and international bodies/agencies and
activities. 
You can't ignore them.   On the other hand, you don't want to spend
all of your efforts playing the liaison game and getting no work done.

Eliot Christian has spent the past several years facilitating US national
and now global coordination among these communities - especially with
respect to CAP use.  He works full time doing this in Geneva for one
of the core international organizations in this arena - WMO.  As he
indicated:
> WMO recently compiled responses to a questionnaire concerning 
> official alerting authorities. This should give us a database of 
> alerting authorities of the 132 responding nations. A WMO office 
> in China (Hong Kong Observatory) is putting that online. I imagine 
> we can use this as a seed for rationalizing among the various 
> official directories that exist at other international venues.
Seems like a good path forward.

--tony

-- 
Tony Rutkowski | Netmagic Associates LLC | Ashburn VA | mob: +1 703.999.8270

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
To: "'DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:21:17 +0300
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Hi Keith, 

>Firstly, I am not sure the identification of the types of 
>warnings I wish to subscribe to, and the nature of the 
>warning, are necessarily one and the same thing, yet that 
>seems to be assumed by the drafts. 

If you want to subscribe to certain alerts then there better should be a
relationship otherwise the point of including any information about desired
alerts is a bit mood. 

Henning was a bit doubtful of the benefit of subscribing to separate
categories of alerts. Someone else suggested that this should be left to a
manual procedure of picking the right server that has a certain type of
alert messages to distribute, e.g., weather alerts. 

>
>Secondly, surely we should be seeking some alignment of 
>warning types between the different delivery mechanisms.

This is not the feedback I got from others. 

>I 
>note that we have lists in 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-04 and 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning
>-01 that are aligned with each other, but bear no relationship 
>with those being defined in other bodies.

Well. I took these terms from the categories in the CAP specification. 

>
>For example 3GPP TS 22.268 defines the umbrella for warnings 
>provided by the cell broadcast service 
>
>http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/22268.htm
>
>This defines a structure that incorporates at least ETWS for 
>the far east, and CMAS for north america. Europe is still 
>working on a coordinated set of requirements.
>
>and you will find the message identifiers for these two in 
>3GPP TS 23.041
>
>http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23041.htm
>
>Including recent expansions which have not yet appeared in the 
>published document these come down to:
>
>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for earthquake warning message.
>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for tsunami warning message.
>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for earthquake and tsunami 
>combined warning message.
>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for test message.
>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for messages related to other 
>emergency types.
>ETWS CBS Message Identifier for future extension.

Thanks for these pointers. Interesting to see that there are different
categories being used compared to the CAP work.

Ciao
Hannes

>regards
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked]
>> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:58 AM
>> To: David Aylward (Comcare); 'Art Botterell'; [email-masked]; 
>> [email-masked]
>> Cc: Timothy Grapes; [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>> 
>> All
>> 
>> While I might agree with the reasons you have stated for the 
>vagueness 
>> of categories, I have to look at Henning's example as a why I don't 
>> necessarily want "all warnings" from a geography. For example, he 
>> rightfully stated that just because I listed Tsunami warnings as 
>> something I care about, I should also care about the chemical leaks, 
>> or Tornados in my area too.
>> 
>> And there's the rub - who decides what warnings I get?
>> 
>> If I subscribe to (conceivably) all warnings in my area, do I really 
>> care when Dave has falen and can't reach his beer? Is that so 
>> monumental to anyone else?  Local policy might dictate that yeah - 
>> everyone should do what it takes to get Dave his beer, but I don't 
>> necessarily need to care, therefore I will likely NOT want 
>to get this 
>> messages.
>> 
>> Too many warning messages will create a "cry wolf" mode of me 
>> eventually believing none of them are useful, regardless of 
>what they 
>> say. I just won't reach for my (whatever) device if it's just out of 
>> my reach.
>> 
>> Perhaps general categories ought to be looked at, because I think I 
>> can see exactly where Hannes is going, and I believe I'm in the same 
>> ballpark as him thinking this ought  to be a little more 
>specific for 
>> subscriptions.
>> 
>> James
>> 
>> At 03:41 PM 7/12/2009, David Aylward \(Comcare\) wrote:
>> >Hannes:
>> >
>> >That is exactly what I was talking about, but CAP was not
>> designed for that.
>> >It is a
>> >"broadcast to the world" standard.  It is excellent for that
>> purpose,
>> >but not for the more refined purpose you are pursuing.
>> >
>> >The OASIS EDXL Distribution Element was designed for exactly
>> that purpose:
>> >machine to machine routing based on incident type, role and similar 
>> >factors, and primarily as Art suggests in the "wholesale",
>> inter-organization world.
>> >
>> >
>> >Organizations (and individuals connected to them) subscribe
>> to "hear" 
>> >about incident types within certain geographies.
>> >
>> >We have talked in the past, Hannes, about "core services",
>> the purpose
>> >of them is to provision queries such as you suggest, and
>> govern rights
>> >to send and receive such messages.
>> >
>> >Lots of work has been done on these ideas outside of the 
>> >message-specific standards that they would enable.
>> >
>> >
>> >David K. Aylward, President
>> >COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
>> >1351 Independence Court, SE
>> >Washington, DC 20003
>> >202.255.3215 (mobile)
>> >202.295.0136 (office)
>> >202.521.4047 (fax)
>> >[email-masked]
>> >
>> >This communication is intended for the use of the recipient
>> to which it
>> >is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or
>> privileged
>> >information. Please contact us immediately if you are not
>> the intended
>> >recipient of this communication, and do not copy,
>> distribute, or take
>> >action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or 
>> >subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: [email-masked]
>> >[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>> Art Botterell
>> >Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
>> >To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> >Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>> >
>> >I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the
>> near term,
>> >to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than
>> to topical
>> >categories.  That pushes the question of message 
>authoritativeness / 
>> >jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and
>> into the
>> >larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional 
>coordination, 
>> >where it more properly belongs.
>> >
>> >Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be
>> guaranteed to
>> >be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical disconnects"
>> >leading to missed alerts either because of differing
>> interpretations of
>> >categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived 
>> >categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the 
>> >unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision
>> seems to
>> >be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether 
>even that is 
>> >more helpful than it is risky.
>> >
>> >- Art
>> >
>> >
>> >On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> >
>> > > I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my 
>> > > question.
>> > >
>> > > If you only set the value in the category field for the
>> purpose of
>> > > human consumption then there is not really an interoperability 
>> > > issue.
>> > >
>> > > Now, with the work on
>> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
>> > > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to 
>> > > "subscribe"
>> > > to certain type of events: you might indicate something like 
>> > > location and the type of events you are interested in.
>> > >
>> > > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently
>> matters. With the
>> > > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to
>> come up with a
>> > > description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
>> > >
>> > > Ciao
>> > > Hannes
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting 
>Protocol.  
>> >This list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS
>> Emergency Management TC.
>> >Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at 
>> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abb
>> rev=emerge
>> >ncy
>> >CAP-list mailing list
>> >[email-masked]
>> >http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>> >
>> >This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any 
>> >particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >earlywarning mailing list
>> >[email-masked]
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>> 
>_______________________________________________
>earlywarning mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:22:38 -0400
From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Organization: Netmagic Associates
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
Reply-To: [email-masked]

DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> Firstly, I am not sure the identification of the types of warnings I wish to subscribe to, and the nature of the warning, are necessarily one and the same thing, yet that seems to be assumed by the drafts. 
>   
These are all subjects that were discussed at some length at
the recent Geneva workshop on alert identifiers.  It's also
apparent that there are many active user communities worldwide
who have evolved their implementations, secretariats, and
administrative processes.  The WMO has its own ecosystem
based on international agreements and has served as a point
of convergence - especially with Eliot Christian's presence.

Somehow the dialogue on this list seems disconnected from
this larger active global ecosystem.  It's not clear what you do
about this, but the "they should come here" approach will not
work.

--tony

-- 
Tony Rutkowski | Netmagic Associates LLC | Ashburn VA | mob: +1 703.999.8270

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:09:19 +0200
Accept-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Firstly, I am not sure the identification of the types of warnings I wish to subscribe to, and the nature of the warning, are necessarily one and the same thing, yet that seems to be assumed by the drafts. 

Secondly, surely we should be seeking some alignment of warning types between the different delivery mechanisms. I note that we have lists in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-04 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning-01 that are aligned with each other, but bear no relationship with those being defined in other bodies.

For example 3GPP TS 22.268 defines the umbrella for warnings provided by the cell broadcast service 

http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/22268.htm

This defines a structure that incorporates at least ETWS for the far east, and CMAS for north america. Europe is still working on a coordinated set of requirements.

and you will find the message identifiers for these two in 3GPP TS 23.041

http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23041.htm

Including recent expansions which have not yet appeared in the published document these come down to:

ETWS CBS Message Identifier for earthquake warning message.
ETWS CBS Message Identifier for tsunami warning message.
ETWS CBS Message Identifier for earthquake and tsunami combined warning message.
ETWS CBS Message Identifier for test message.
ETWS CBS Message Identifier for messages related to other emergency types.
ETWS CBS Message Identifier for future extension.

CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Presidential Level Alerts.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Extreme Alerts with Severity of Extreme, Urgency of Immediate, and Certainty of Observed.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Extreme Alerts with Severity of Extreme, Urgency of Immediate, and Certainty of Likely.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Extreme Alerts with Severity of Extreme, Urgency of Expected, and Certainty of Observed.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Extreme Alerts with Severity of Extreme, Urgency of Expected, and Certainty of Likely.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Severe Alerts with Severity of Severe, Urgency of Immediate, and Certainty of Observed.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Severe Alerts with Severity of Severe, Urgency of Immediate, and Certainty of Likely.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Severe Alerts with Severity of Severe, Urgency of Expected, and Certainty of Observed.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Severe Alerts with Severity of Severe, Urgency of Expected, and Certainty of Likely.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for Child Abduction Emergency (or Amber Alert).
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for the Required Monthly Test.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for CMAS Exercise.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for operator defined use.
CMAS CBS Message Identifier for future extension.

I don't see any alignment between these lists and those in the internet-drafts, yet surely you will have the same content providers generating these messages, and the same receivers receiving these messages.

Note that the ETWS set are already in deployment (they formed part of 3GPP release 8). I believe the CMAS ones are based on input discussed first in ATIS.

ITU-T SG2 also believe they are playing in this space.

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:58 AM
> To: David Aylward (Comcare); 'Art Botterell'; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: Timothy Grapes; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> 
> All
> 
> While I might agree with the reasons you have stated for the 
> vagueness of categories, I have to look at Henning's example 
> as a why I don't necessarily want "all warnings" from a 
> geography. For example, he rightfully stated that just 
> because I listed Tsunami warnings as something I care about, 
> I should also care about the chemical leaks, or Tornados in 
> my area too.
> 
> And there's the rub - who decides what warnings I get?
> 
> If I subscribe to (conceivably) all warnings in my area, do I 
> really care when Dave has falen and can't reach his beer? Is 
> that so monumental to anyone else?  Local policy might 
> dictate that yeah - everyone should do what it takes to get 
> Dave his beer, but I don't necessarily need to care, 
> therefore I will likely NOT want to get this messages.
> 
> Too many warning messages will create a "cry wolf" mode of me 
> eventually believing none of them are useful, regardless of 
> what they say. I just won't reach for my (whatever) device if 
> it's just out of my reach.
> 
> Perhaps general categories ought to be looked at, because I 
> think I can see exactly where Hannes is going, and I believe 
> I'm in the same ballpark as him thinking this ought  to be a 
> little more specific for subscriptions.
> 
> James
> 
> At 03:41 PM 7/12/2009, David Aylward \(Comcare\) wrote:
> >Hannes:
> >
> >That is exactly what I was talking about, but CAP was not 
> designed for that.
> >It is a
> >"broadcast to the world" standard.  It is excellent for that 
> purpose, 
> >but not for the more refined purpose you are pursuing.
> >
> >The OASIS EDXL Distribution Element was designed for exactly 
> that purpose:
> >machine to machine routing based on incident type, role and similar 
> >factors, and primarily as Art suggests in the "wholesale", 
> inter-organization world.
> >
> >
> >Organizations (and individuals connected to them) subscribe 
> to "hear" 
> >about incident types within certain geographies.
> >
> >We have talked in the past, Hannes, about "core services", 
> the purpose 
> >of them is to provision queries such as you suggest, and 
> govern rights 
> >to send and receive such messages.
> >
> >Lots of work has been done on these ideas outside of the 
> >message-specific standards that they would enable.
> >
> >
> >David K. Aylward, President
> >COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
> >1351 Independence Court, SE
> >Washington, DC 20003
> >202.255.3215 (mobile)
> >202.295.0136 (office)
> >202.521.4047 (fax)
> >[email-masked]
> >
> >This communication is intended for the use of the recipient 
> to which it 
> >is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or 
> privileged 
> >information. Please contact us immediately if you are not 
> the intended 
> >recipient of this communication, and do not copy, 
> distribute, or take 
> >action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or 
> >subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email-masked]
> >[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> Art Botterell
> >Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
> >To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> >
> >I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the 
> near term, 
> >to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than 
> to topical 
> >categories.  That pushes the question of message authoritativeness / 
> >jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and 
> into the 
> >larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination, 
> >where it more properly belongs.
> >
> >Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be 
> guaranteed to 
> >be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical disconnects"
> >leading to missed alerts either because of differing 
> interpretations of 
> >categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived 
> >categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the 
> >unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision 
> seems to 
> >be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether even that is 
> >more helpful than it is risky.
> >
> >- Art
> >
> >
> >On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >
> > > I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my 
> > > question.
> > >
> > > If you only set the value in the category field for the 
> purpose of 
> > > human consumption then there is not really an interoperability 
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > Now, with the work on
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> > > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to 
> > > "subscribe"
> > > to certain type of events: you might indicate something like 
> > > location and the type of events you are interested in.
> > >
> > > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently 
> matters. With the 
> > > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to 
> come up with a 
> > > description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
> > >
> > > Ciao
> > > Hannes
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  
> >This list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS 
> Emergency Management TC.
> >Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at 
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abb
> rev=emerge
> >ncy
> >CAP-list mailing list
> >[email-masked]
> >http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
> >
> >This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any 
> >particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >earlywarning mailing list
> >[email-masked]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> 
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> 

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:29:38 +0300
Subject: [earlywarning] Requirements, Terminology and Framework for Exigent Communications

Hi all, 

I updated the terminology, architecture and requirements draft but had to go
for a manual submission (i.e., it takes some time for the draft announcement
to arrive). In the meanwhile please look at: 
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-norreys-ecrit-authority2individuals/
draft-norreys-ecrit-authority2individuals-requirements-03.txt
or
http://tinyurl.com/lvem9g 

The document changed quite a bit based on the feedback from Carl and Art. To
avoid too much problems with terminology that has a lot of history we picked
up the terminology from the email community (based on a recent Email
architecture draft by Dave Crocker). 

I am personally quite happy with the result (even though the document still
requires more work). 

Ciao
Hannes

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
To: "David Aylward (Comcare)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:42:56 -0700
Cc: EM Groups <[email-masked]>, IAEM List <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Bob Robinson <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 13:25 -0400, David Aylward (Comcare) wrote:
> Rex:
> 
> Very insightful comments.  Certainly you are pointing in the right
> direction.  Many of us are working with alliances to make sure that safety
> uses are part of this stimulus.  The law and regulations call for safety to
> be part of the mix.  

In the FCC's NOI, there are a plethora of worthy applications.  Let's
pick on just a couple: education and schools always makes such a list.
And reach to rural has several sub-worthies including remote health
care, education, etc.  

Now look at the problem asking the questions 'what makes emergency
services different?'
	- the geographic coverage for 'reach to rural' and 'reach to emergency
services' is about the same
	- the driving requirement for emergency services is high availability.
This requirement makes 'emergency services broadband' a superset of all
the others.  
	- security (the FCC's NOI uses the term 'privacy').  And I'd point out
that authenticity is more important than privacy (you ever been
knee-deep in a situation and watched the rumor mill take off?).  The
point here is that these requirements belong in applications (like CAP)
and not in the comms plumbing.  

> 
> However, our enthusiasm should be tempered a bit by the emphasis the
> recently issued rules make for use of the funds.  With a relatively small
> amount of money (a one time shot of $7 billion is small potatoes compared to
> something like $35-40 billion annually in industry capex), many of us had
> hoped that the rules would leverage this one time investment by focusing on
> building integrated demand, i.e. get safety, healthcare, etc sharing
> information and thus using broad band more and more.  

My observation is that both emergency services and schools need
internet.  But every place I've looked, both are on different planning
tracks.  

> 
> However, the predominant designated use for the first tranche of the
> stimulus funds (only 1/3 of the NTIA amount) is digging trenches for fiber
> into rural America. Nothing inherently wrong with that if someone has a
> future business model to support the capex.   

One of the guys I discuss this stuff with is in a western state where
there's miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.  His primary
concern is to provide coverage, both for emergency services and
motorists along the interstate highway that runs through the state.
Hmmm ... the highway runs parallel to the railroad and guess where the
trenches have already been dug and filled with dark fiber?  

Part of the problem is indeed capitalization expense, but that's at
least equaled by the need to get hitherto stovepipe comms industries
working together ... to extend the internet.  You can see the problem in
action by looking at the NPSTC working groups ... they immediately
equated 'broadband' with 'LTE', naively ignoring what the CATV companies
call 'broadband internet'-).  

> 
> But the problem in the safety/healthcare eco-system is not primarily access
> to IP communications trunks, but application layer capability and
> interoperability issues.  Part of the first part of the stimulus funds are
> devoted to "Innovative and sustainable uses of broadband".   Hopefully more
> will be in the future.  

David, you're right on target worrying about the sustainability (or at
least who you quoted is).  What doesn't make economic sense is to extend
the internet to those miles and miles ... twice.  Once for emergency
services and once for something else.  What makes a lot more sense is an
anchor tenant agreement that 1) meets the emergency services needs and
2) allows the commercial vendor to sell capacity above that
commercially.  

(apologies to Art et al for highjacking the CAP list)

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rex Buddenberg
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:55 PM
> To: Bob Robinson
> Cc: IAEM List; EM Groups; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Art
> Botterell
> Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> 
> Bob,
> 
> You point into a very interesting parallel development out there in the
> world.
> 
> In the stimulus bill last spring was $7.2B in grant money that went to
> USDA ('broadband' and 'reach to rural') and NTIA in Commerce
> ('broadband' and 'reach to underserved').  The FCC was also charged with
> drafting a 'national broadband plan'.  
> 	FCC published a Notice of Inquiry, for which the comment period just
> closed last week.  About the first comment they sought was a definition
> of 'broadband'.  (For paper coming from inside the beltway, this NOI is
> pretty good stuff, IMHO).  Whatever your definition of broadband, you
> can look behind it and see 'extension of the internet'.  And you should
> recognize that extension of internet to rural and extension of internet
> to emergency services has a whole lot of overlap.  
> 	Just to complete the federal nethead - bellhead list of players, DHS
> and DoJ are still in circuit-switch.  ... and didn't get this batch of
> grant money.
> 
> 
> What you ought to get out of this is is that
> 	- emergency services vehicles will soon be routinely on the
> internet.
> 	- the citizenry that emergency services exists to serve will
> increasingly be on the internet.
> 	This observation is progressively true in any event -- the netheads
> always win -- but the stimulus subsidies are probably going to be a
> substantial accelerant.... Santa Ana winds behind a California
> wildfire.  
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 17:50 -0700, Bob Robinson wrote:
> > Art,
> > 
> > Very good analysis.  In fact I think the question of user (consumer)
> disconnect can be put to the broader field of general emergency management
> communications and in fact it can be a very important part of any attempt to
> build "standards" that are to be applied across groups/agencies/etc.
> involved in emergency management.  But what  the heck, that's just my
> nickels worth based on 25+ years of EM experience.
> > 
> > Bob Robinson
> > 
> > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Art Botterell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Art Botterell <[email-masked]>
> > > Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> > > To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> > > Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 2:23 PM
> > 
> > > I'm wondering whether it might be
> > > simpler, at least in the near term, to let consumers
> > > subscribe to selected sources rather than to topical
> > > categories.  That pushes the question of message
> > > authoritativeness / jurisdiction  /credibility out of
> > > the CAP infrastructure and into the larger field of
> > > inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination, where
> > > it more properly belongs.
> > > 
> > > Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be
> > > guaranteed to be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of
> > > "categorical disconnects" leading to missed alerts either
> > > because of differing interpretations of categories or of
> > > unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived
> > > categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable
> > > taxonomy of the unexpected, but right now a degree of
> > > deliberate imprecision seems to be the best we can do... and
> > > I sometimes wonder whether even that is more helpful than it
> > > is risky.
> > > 
> > > - Art
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I should provide a bit more feedback about the
> > > background to my question.
> > > > 
> > > > If you only set the value in the category field for
> > > the purpose of human
> > > > consumption then there is not really an
> > > interoperability issue.
> > > > 
> > > > Now, with the work on
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> > > > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that
> > > allows you to "subscribe"
> > > > to certain type of events: you might indicate
> > > something like location and
> > > > the type of events you are interested in.
> > > > 
> > > > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently
> > > matters. With the
> > > > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to
> > > come up with a
> > > > description of the emergency services categories, see
> > > RFC 5031.
> > > > 
> > > > Ciao
> > > > Hannes
> > > 
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This
> list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.
> Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
> > CAP-list mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
> > 
> > This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
> particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
-- 
Rex Buddenberg
Naval Postgraduate School
Code IS/Bu
Monterey, Ca 93943
831/656-3576

From: "David Aylward \(Comcare\)" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Rex Buddenberg'" <[email-masked]>, "Bob Robinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:25:04 -0400
Cc: EM Groups <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], IAEM List <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Rex:

Very insightful comments.  Certainly you are pointing in the right
direction.  Many of us are working with alliances to make sure that safety
uses are part of this stimulus.  The law and regulations call for safety to
be part of the mix.  

However, our enthusiasm should be tempered a bit by the emphasis the
recently issued rules make for use of the funds.  With a relatively small
amount of money (a one time shot of $7 billion is small potatoes compared to
something like $35-40 billion annually in industry capex), many of us had
hoped that the rules would leverage this one time investment by focusing on
building integrated demand, i.e. get safety, healthcare, etc sharing
information and thus using broad band more and more.  

However, the predominant designated use for the first tranche of the
stimulus funds (only 1/3 of the NTIA amount) is digging trenches for fiber
into rural America. Nothing inherently wrong with that if someone has a
future business model to support the capex.   

But the problem in the safety/healthcare eco-system is not primarily access
to IP communications trunks, but application layer capability and
interoperability issues.  Part of the first part of the stimulus funds are
devoted to "Innovative and sustainable uses of broadband".   Hopefully more
will be in the future.  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rex Buddenberg
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:55 PM
To: Bob Robinson
Cc: IAEM List; EM Groups; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Art
Botterell
Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Bob,

You point into a very interesting parallel development out there in the
world.

In the stimulus bill last spring was $7.2B in grant money that went to
USDA ('broadband' and 'reach to rural') and NTIA in Commerce
('broadband' and 'reach to underserved').  The FCC was also charged with
drafting a 'national broadband plan'.  
	FCC published a Notice of Inquiry, for which the comment period just
closed last week.  About the first comment they sought was a definition
of 'broadband'.  (For paper coming from inside the beltway, this NOI is
pretty good stuff, IMHO).  Whatever your definition of broadband, you
can look behind it and see 'extension of the internet'.  And you should
recognize that extension of internet to rural and extension of internet
to emergency services has a whole lot of overlap.  
	Just to complete the federal nethead - bellhead list of players, DHS
and DoJ are still in circuit-switch.  ... and didn't get this batch of
grant money.

What you ought to get out of this is is that
	- emergency services vehicles will soon be routinely on the
internet.
	- the citizenry that emergency services exists to serve will
increasingly be on the internet.
	This observation is progressively true in any event -- the netheads
always win -- but the stimulus subsidies are probably going to be a
substantial accelerant.... Santa Ana winds behind a California
wildfire.  

On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 17:50 -0700, Bob Robinson wrote:
> Art,
> 
> Very good analysis.  In fact I think the question of user (consumer)
disconnect can be put to the broader field of general emergency management
communications and in fact it can be a very important part of any attempt to
build "standards" that are to be applied across groups/agencies/etc.
involved in emergency management.  But what  the heck, that's just my
nickels worth based on 25+ years of EM experience.
> 
> Bob Robinson
> 
> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Art Botterell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > From: Art Botterell <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> > To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> > Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 2:23 PM
> 
> > I'm wondering whether it might be
> > simpler, at least in the near term, to let consumers
> > subscribe to selected sources rather than to topical
> > categories.  That pushes the question of message
> > authoritativeness / jurisdiction  /credibility out of
> > the CAP infrastructure and into the larger field of
> > inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination, where
> > it more properly belongs.
> > 
> > Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be
> > guaranteed to be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of
> > "categorical disconnects" leading to missed alerts either
> > because of differing interpretations of categories or of
> > unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived
> > categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable
> > taxonomy of the unexpected, but right now a degree of
> > deliberate imprecision seems to be the best we can do... and
> > I sometimes wonder whether even that is more helpful than it
> > is risky.
> > 
> > - Art
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I should provide a bit more feedback about the
> > background to my question.
> > > 
> > > If you only set the value in the category field for
> > the purpose of human
> > > consumption then there is not really an
> > interoperability issue.
> > > 
> > > Now, with the work on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> > > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that
> > allows you to "subscribe"
> > > to certain type of events: you might indicate
> > something like location and
> > > the type of events you are interested in.
> > > 
> > > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently
> > matters. With the
> > > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to
> > come up with a
> > > description of the emergency services categories, see
> > RFC 5031.
> > > 
> > > Ciao
> > > Hannes
> > 
> >
> _______________________________________________
> This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This
list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.
Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
> CAP-list mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
> 
> This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
-- 
Rex Buddenberg
Naval Postgraduate School
Code IS/Bu
Monterey, Ca 93943
831/656-3576

_______________________________________________
This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This
list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.
Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
CAP-list mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list

This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
particular program or product other than the CAP itself.

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
To: Bob Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:55:12 -0700
Cc: IAEM List <[email-masked]>, EM Groups <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Bob,

You point into a very interesting parallel development out there in the
world.

In the stimulus bill last spring was $7.2B in grant money that went to
USDA ('broadband' and 'reach to rural') and NTIA in Commerce
('broadband' and 'reach to underserved').  The FCC was also charged with
drafting a 'national broadband plan'.  
	FCC published a Notice of Inquiry, for which the comment period just
closed last week.  About the first comment they sought was a definition
of 'broadband'.  (For paper coming from inside the beltway, this NOI is
pretty good stuff, IMHO).  Whatever your definition of broadband, you
can look behind it and see 'extension of the internet'.  And you should
recognize that extension of internet to rural and extension of internet
to emergency services has a whole lot of overlap.  
	Just to complete the federal nethead - bellhead list of players, DHS
and DoJ are still in circuit-switch.  ... and didn't get this batch of
grant money.

What you ought to get out of this is is that
	- emergency services vehicles will soon be routinely on the internet.
	- the citizenry that emergency services exists to serve will
increasingly be on the internet.
	This observation is progressively true in any event -- the netheads
always win -- but the stimulus subsidies are probably going to be a
substantial accelerant.... Santa Ana winds behind a California
wildfire.  

On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 17:50 -0700, Bob Robinson wrote:
> Art,
> 
> Very good analysis.  In fact I think the question of user (consumer) disconnect can be put to the broader field of general emergency management communications and in fact it can be a very important part of any attempt to build "standards" that are to be applied across groups/agencies/etc. involved in emergency management.  But what  the heck, that's just my nickels worth based on 25+ years of EM experience.
> 
> Bob Robinson
> 
> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Art Botterell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > From: Art Botterell <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
> > To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> > Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 2:23 PM
> 
> > I'm wondering whether it might be
> > simpler, at least in the near term, to let consumers
> > subscribe to selected sources rather than to topical
> > categories.  That pushes the question of message
> > authoritativeness / jurisdiction  /credibility out of
> > the CAP infrastructure and into the larger field of
> > inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination, where
> > it more properly belongs.
> > 
> > Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be
> > guaranteed to be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of
> > "categorical disconnects" leading to missed alerts either
> > because of differing interpretations of categories or of
> > unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived
> > categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable
> > taxonomy of the unexpected, but right now a degree of
> > deliberate imprecision seems to be the best we can do... and
> > I sometimes wonder whether even that is more helpful than it
> > is risky.
> > 
> > - Art
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I should provide a bit more feedback about the
> > background to my question.
> > > 
> > > If you only set the value in the category field for
> > the purpose of human
> > > consumption then there is not really an
> > interoperability issue.
> > > 
> > > Now, with the work on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> > > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that
> > allows you to "subscribe"
> > > to certain type of events: you might indicate
> > something like location and
> > > the type of events you are interested in.
> > > 
> > > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently
> > matters. With the
> > > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to
> > come up with a
> > > description of the emergency services categories, see
> > RFC 5031.
> > > 
> > > Ciao
> > > Hannes
> > 
> >
> _______________________________________________
> This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
> CAP-list mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
> 
> This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
-- 
Rex Buddenberg
Naval Postgraduate School
Code IS/Bu
Monterey, Ca 93943
831/656-3576

From: "Timothy Grapes" <[email-masked]>
To: "'James M. Polk'" <[email-masked]>, "'David Aylward \(Comcare\)'" <[email-masked]>, "'Art Botterell'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:57:03 -0400
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

While valid points have been made on both sides, I do suggest that the
EDXL-DE be reviewed against your requirements to determine how it may
address your needs.  Without opening the hood further, it appears it could
do the trick in concert with registration processes etc. and a distribution
framework such  as OPEN.

Thanks,
Tim Grapes
Evolution Technologies, Inc.
An SDVOB "Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Business"
Office:    (703) 654-6075
Mobile:  (703) 304-4829
Fax:         (703) 654-6001
[email-masked]
http://www.evotecinc.com/
"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt"
- Henry J. Kaiser

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:58 PM
To: David Aylward (Comcare); 'Art Botterell'; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: Timothy Grapes; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

All

While I might agree with the reasons you have stated for the 
vagueness of categories, I have to look at Henning's example as a why 
I don't necessarily want "all warnings" from a geography. For 
example, he rightfully stated that just because I listed Tsunami 
warnings as something I care about, I should also care about the 
chemical leaks, or Tornados in my area too.

And there's the rub - who decides what warnings I get?

If I subscribe to (conceivably) all warnings in my area, do I really 
care when Dave has falen and can't reach his beer? Is that so 
monumental to anyone else?  Local policy might dictate that yeah - 
everyone should do what it takes to get Dave his beer, but I don't 
necessarily need to care, therefore I will likely NOT want to get 
this messages.

Too many warning messages will create a "cry wolf" mode of me 
eventually believing none of them are useful, regardless of what they 
say. I just won't reach for my (whatever) device if it's just out of my
reach.

Perhaps general categories ought to be looked at, because I think I 
can see exactly where Hannes is going, and I believe I'm in the same 
ballpark as him thinking this ought  to be a little more specific for 
subscriptions.

James

At 03:41 PM 7/12/2009, David Aylward \(Comcare\) wrote:
>Hannes:
>
>That is exactly what I was talking about, but CAP was not designed for
that.
>It is a
>"broadcast to the world" standard.  It is excellent for that purpose, but
>not for the more refined purpose you are pursuing.
>
>The OASIS EDXL Distribution Element was designed for exactly that purpose:
>machine to machine routing based on incident type, role and similar
factors,
>and primarily as Art suggests in the "wholesale", inter-organization world.
>
>
>Organizations (and individuals connected to them) subscribe to "hear" about
>incident types within certain geographies.
>
>We have talked in the past, Hannes, about "core services", the purpose of
>them is to provision queries such as you suggest, and govern rights to send
>and receive such messages.
>
>Lots of work has been done on these ideas outside of the message-specific
>standards that they would enable.
>
>
>David K. Aylward, President
>COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
>1351 Independence Court, SE
>Washington, DC 20003
>202.255.3215 (mobile)
>202.295.0136 (office)
>202.521.4047 (fax)
>[email-masked]
>
>This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
>addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or privileged
>information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
>recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take
action
>relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply,
>should be deleted or destroyed.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked]
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
>Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the near term,
>to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than to topical
>categories.  That pushes the question of message authoritativeness /
>jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and into the
>larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination,
>where it more properly belongs.
>
>Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be guaranteed to
>be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical disconnects"
>leading to missed alerts either because of differing interpretations
>of categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived
>categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the
>unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision seems to
>be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether even that is
>more helpful than it is risky.
>
>- Art
>
>
>On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> > I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my
> > question.
> >
> > If you only set the value in the category field for the purpose of
> > human
> > consumption then there is not really an interoperability issue.
> >
> > Now, with the work on
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to
> > "subscribe"
> > to certain type of events: you might indicate something like
> > location and
> > the type of events you are interested in.
> >
> > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently matters. With the
> > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to come up with a
> > description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
>
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This
>list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.
>Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
>particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>earlywarning mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:58:07 -0500
To: "David Aylward \(Comcare\)" <[email-masked]>, "'Art Botterell'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Timothy Grapes <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

All

While I might agree with the reasons you have stated for the 
vagueness of categories, I have to look at Henning's example as a why 
I don't necessarily want "all warnings" from a geography. For 
example, he rightfully stated that just because I listed Tsunami 
warnings as something I care about, I should also care about the 
chemical leaks, or Tornados in my area too.

And there's the rub - who decides what warnings I get?

If I subscribe to (conceivably) all warnings in my area, do I really 
care when Dave has falen and can't reach his beer? Is that so 
monumental to anyone else?  Local policy might dictate that yeah - 
everyone should do what it takes to get Dave his beer, but I don't 
necessarily need to care, therefore I will likely NOT want to get 
this messages.

Too many warning messages will create a "cry wolf" mode of me 
eventually believing none of them are useful, regardless of what they 
say. I just won't reach for my (whatever) device if it's just out of my reach.

Perhaps general categories ought to be looked at, because I think I 
can see exactly where Hannes is going, and I believe I'm in the same 
ballpark as him thinking this ought  to be a little more specific for 
subscriptions.

James

At 03:41 PM 7/12/2009, David Aylward \(Comcare\) wrote:
>Hannes:
>
>That is exactly what I was talking about, but CAP was not designed for that.
>It is a
>"broadcast to the world" standard.  It is excellent for that purpose, but
>not for the more refined purpose you are pursuing.
>
>The OASIS EDXL Distribution Element was designed for exactly that purpose:
>machine to machine routing based on incident type, role and similar factors,
>and primarily as Art suggests in the "wholesale", inter-organization world.
>
>
>Organizations (and individuals connected to them) subscribe to "hear" about
>incident types within certain geographies.
>
>We have talked in the past, Hannes, about "core services", the purpose of
>them is to provision queries such as you suggest, and govern rights to send
>and receive such messages.
>
>Lots of work has been done on these ideas outside of the message-specific
>standards that they would enable.
>
>
>David K. Aylward, President
>COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
>1351 Independence Court, SE
>Washington, DC 20003
>202.255.3215 (mobile)
>202.295.0136 (office)
>202.521.4047 (fax)
>[email-masked]
>
>This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
>addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or privileged
>information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
>recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action
>relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply,
>should be deleted or destroyed.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked]
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
>Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the near term,
>to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than to topical
>categories.  That pushes the question of message authoritativeness /
>jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and into the
>larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination,
>where it more properly belongs.
>
>Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be guaranteed to
>be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical disconnects"
>leading to missed alerts either because of differing interpretations
>of categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived
>categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the
>unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision seems to
>be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether even that is
>more helpful than it is risky.
>
>- Art
>
>
>On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> > I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my
> > question.
> >
> > If you only set the value in the category field for the purpose of
> > human
> > consumption then there is not really an interoperability issue.
> >
> > Now, with the work on
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> > we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to
> > "subscribe"
> > to certain type of events: you might indicate something like
> > location and
> > the type of events you are interested in.
> >
> > Now, the semantic of the category field suddently matters. With the
> > individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to come up with a
> > description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
>
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This
>list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.
>Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
>particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>earlywarning mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:56:17 -0400
From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Organization: Netmagic Associates
To: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], "'David Aylward \(Comcare\)'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
> Here is what I would do: Setup a registry that associates labels with a
> description of what the label means. Someone maintains the registry (in the
> IETF we use IANA). Someone adds a new term - fine. Deleting unused or
> revised terms is fine as well. 
>   
A step in that direction was taken at the joint WMO-ITU-T-OASIS workshop
three weeks ago. Steps are being taken to set up an dedicated OID namespace
for all manner of alert tags, especially for CAP.  WMO is setting up a
registry
for some of the namespace.  It's designed to be distributed and autonomous
within an OID construct.

--tony

-- 
Tony Rutkowski | Netmagic Associates LLC | Ashburn VA | mob: +1 703.999.8270

From: "David Aylward \(Comcare\)" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Hannes Tschofenig'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:51:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Hannes:

I am certainly not the world authority on this, but I was repeating the
views of many who have spent time on this issue for many years.  

You are describing a simplified version of what I suggested, just an
entirely anarchic one.

There is another reason that may not be so obvious to machine to machine
people.  There are semantic interoperability reasons for trying to confine
the choices.  In the emergency response eco-system definitions of incidents
get used verbally and in writing, as well as machine to machine.  

David K. Aylward, President
COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
1351 Independence Court, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202.255.3215 (mobile)
202.295.0136 (office)
202.521.4047 (fax)
[email-masked]
 
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or privileged
information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action
relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply,
should be deleted or destroyed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:07 PM
To: David Aylward; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Hi David, 

Is this really so difficult? 

Here is what I would do: Setup a registry that associates labels with a
description of what the label means. Someone maintains the registry (in the
IETF we use IANA). Someone adds a new term - fine. Deleting unused or
revised terms is fine as well. 

So, is there an initial list flying around somewhere already? 

Ciao
Hannes

PS: What is the <category> element in the CAP document used for today? 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
>David Aylward (Comcare)
>Sent: 12 July, 2009 19:55
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>Hannes:
>
>As Art says, CAP's incident list is very general.  To further 
>Art's point, when it came to the development of what became 
>the OASIS EDXL Distribution Element (DE), we faced the same 
>issue as a primary purpose of the DE is routing messages by 
>incident type.  The CAP categories were far too broad for that.  
>
>So the draft requirements and specification for the DE 
>developed by the cross emergency domain practitioner working 
>group developed a detailed list of incident types for 
>submission to the OASIS EMTC as part of its request for the 
>development of that standard.
>
>The EMTC wisely rejected our suggestion, thinking that (1) the 
>work to create a shared incident type taxomony should be done 
>for the US and other countries, but hadn't been done yet, and 
>(2) such lists of incident types would likely change more 
>frequently than the standard.  
>
>So they adopted a flexible solution of "Managed Lists" for 
>this and similar
>list issues (e.g. roles).   Under this approach values such as incident
>names appear in the standard, along with the name of the 
>managed list you are using.  If there is only one Managed List 
>for that topic in the world, great, but if there are several 
>you can still communicate because you know which list is being used.  
>
>The absence of both initial managed lists and a repository for 
>their locations is an identified gap that hopefully will be 
>addressed soon.  A number of us developed a project to do 
>Managed Lists for incident names and roles, but other 
>priorities have gotten in the way.
>
>
>
> 
>David K. Aylward, President
>COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
>1351 Independence Court, SE
>Washington, DC 20003
>202.255.3215 (mobile)
>202.295.0136 (office)
>202.521.4047 (fax)
>[email-masked]
> 
>This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to 
>which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal 
>and/or privileged information. Please contact us immediately 
>if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, 
>and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any 
>communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should 
>be deleted or destroyed.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked]
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
>Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:52 AM
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 3:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> I was wondering whether there is somewhere a more verbose / more 
>> complete description of the semantic of the individual values.
>
>No, and that's deliberate.  Considering the high levels of 
>uncertainty that so often surround emergent events, the CAP 
>designers (first in the CAP Working Group and later within 
>OASIS) struggled to balance completeness against specificity.  
>There was also a concern that we could get bogged down in 
>trying to perfect the taxonomies and wind up with no standard at all.
>
>So the definitions were deliberately left somewhat open-ended 
>and contextual... some would go so far as to say "vague" and 
>I, for one, wouldn't argue.
>
>- Art
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting 
>Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the 
>OASIS Emergency Management TC.
>Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form 
>at 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbre
>v=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of 
>any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting 
>Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the 
>OASIS Emergency Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record 
>should be posted using the form at 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbre
>v=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of 
>any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>

From: "David Aylward \(Comcare\)" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Art Botterell'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:41:44 -0400
Cc: Timothy Grapes <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Hannes:

That is exactly what I was talking about, but CAP was not designed for that.
It is a 
"broadcast to the world" standard.  It is excellent for that purpose, but
not for the more refined purpose you are pursuing.

The OASIS EDXL Distribution Element was designed for exactly that purpose:
machine to machine routing based on incident type, role and similar factors,
and primarily as Art suggests in the "wholesale", inter-organization world.

Organizations (and individuals connected to them) subscribe to "hear" about
incident types within certain geographies.  

We have talked in the past, Hannes, about "core services", the purpose of
them is to provision queries such as you suggest, and govern rights to send
and receive such messages.  

Lots of work has been done on these ideas outside of the message-specific
standards that they would enable.

David K. Aylward, President
COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
1351 Independence Court, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202.255.3215 (mobile)
202.295.0136 (office)
202.521.4047 (fax)
[email-masked]
 
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or privileged
information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action
relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply,
should be deleted or destroyed.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the near term,  
to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than to topical  
categories.  That pushes the question of message authoritativeness /  
jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and into the  
larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination,  
where it more properly belongs.

Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be guaranteed to  
be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical disconnects"  
leading to missed alerts either because of differing interpretations  
of categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived  
categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the  
unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision seems to  
be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether even that is  
more helpful than it is risky.

- Art

On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my  
> question.
>
> If you only set the value in the category field for the purpose of  
> human
> consumption then there is not really an interoperability issue.
>
> Now, with the work on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to  
> "subscribe"
> to certain type of events: you might indicate something like  
> location and
> the type of events you are interested in.
>
> Now, the semantic of the category field suddently matters. With the
> individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to come up with a
> description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes

_______________________________________________
This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This
list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.
Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
CAP-list mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list

This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
particular program or product other than the CAP itself.

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
To: Art Botterell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:17:37 -0400
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

I'm also not convinced that categories are all that useful, at least  
among different kinds emergencies. It seems a bit far-fetched to say  
"I want to know if there's a tsunami, but not a tornado or chemical  
leak, affecting my area". There are likely to be non-emergency  
categories, such as school closings or traffic alerts, that may have  
more limited appeal, but may use the same basic infrastructure.

Henning

On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Art Botterell wrote:

> I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the near  
> term, to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than to  
> topical categories.  That pushes the question of message  
> authoritativeness / jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP  
> infrastructure and into the larger field of inter-agency and inter- 
> jurisidictional coordination, where it more properly belongs.
>
> Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be guaranteed  
> to be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical  
> disconnects" leading to missed alerts either because of differing  
> interpretations of categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit  
> our preconceived categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable  
> taxonomy of the unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate  
> imprecision seems to be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder  
> whether even that is more helpful than it is risky.
>
> - Art
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
>> I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my  
>> question.
>>
>> If you only set the value in the category field for the purpose of  
>> human
>> consumption then there is not really an interoperability issue.
>>
>> Now, with the work on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
>> we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to  
>> "subscribe"
>> to certain type of events: you might indicate something like  
>> location and
>> the type of events you are interested in.
>>
>> Now, the semantic of the category field suddently matters. With the
>> individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to come up with a
>> description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>

From: Art Botterell <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:23:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

I'm wondering whether it might be simpler, at least in the near term,  
to let consumers subscribe to selected sources rather than to topical  
categories.  That pushes the question of message authoritativeness /  
jurisdiction  /credibility out of the CAP infrastructure and into the  
larger field of inter-agency and inter-jurisidictional coordination,  
where it more properly belongs.

Taxonomies tend to be culturally loaded and can never be guaranteed to  
be complete.  Thus there's a real risk of "categorical disconnects"  
leading to missed alerts either because of differing interpretations  
of categories or of unforeseen events that don't fit our preconceived  
categories.  Maybe someday we'll have a reliable taxonomy of the  
unexpected, but right now a degree of deliberate imprecision seems to  
be the best we can do... and I sometimes wonder whether even that is  
more helpful than it is risky.

- Art

On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 11:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my  
> question.
>
> If you only set the value in the category field for the purpose of  
> human
> consumption then there is not really an interoperability issue.
>
> Now, with the work on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
> we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to  
> "subscribe"
> to certain type of events: you might indicate something like  
> location and
> the type of events you are interested in.
>
> Now, the semantic of the category field suddently matters. With the
> individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to come up with a
> description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
To: "'David Aylward \(Comcare\)'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:07:13 +0300
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Hi David, 

Is this really so difficult? 

Here is what I would do: Setup a registry that associates labels with a
description of what the label means. Someone maintains the registry (in the
IETF we use IANA). Someone adds a new term - fine. Deleting unused or
revised terms is fine as well. 

So, is there an initial list flying around somewhere already? 

Ciao
Hannes

PS: What is the <category> element in the CAP document used for today? 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
>David Aylward (Comcare)
>Sent: 12 July, 2009 19:55
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>Hannes:
>
>As Art says, CAP's incident list is very general.  To further 
>Art's point, when it came to the development of what became 
>the OASIS EDXL Distribution Element (DE), we faced the same 
>issue as a primary purpose of the DE is routing messages by 
>incident type.  The CAP categories were far too broad for that.  
>
>So the draft requirements and specification for the DE 
>developed by the cross emergency domain practitioner working 
>group developed a detailed list of incident types for 
>submission to the OASIS EMTC as part of its request for the 
>development of that standard.
>
>The EMTC wisely rejected our suggestion, thinking that (1) the 
>work to create a shared incident type taxomony should be done 
>for the US and other countries, but hadn't been done yet, and 
>(2) such lists of incident types would likely change more 
>frequently than the standard.  
>
>So they adopted a flexible solution of "Managed Lists" for 
>this and similar
>list issues (e.g. roles).   Under this approach values such as incident
>names appear in the standard, along with the name of the 
>managed list you are using.  If there is only one Managed List 
>for that topic in the world, great, but if there are several 
>you can still communicate because you know which list is being used.  
>
>The absence of both initial managed lists and a repository for 
>their locations is an identified gap that hopefully will be 
>addressed soon.  A number of us developed a project to do 
>Managed Lists for incident names and roles, but other 
>priorities have gotten in the way.
>
>
>
> 
>David K. Aylward, President
>COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
>1351 Independence Court, SE
>Washington, DC 20003
>202.255.3215 (mobile)
>202.295.0136 (office)
>202.521.4047 (fax)
>[email-masked]
> 
>This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to 
>which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal 
>and/or privileged information. Please contact us immediately 
>if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, 
>and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any 
>communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should 
>be deleted or destroyed.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked]
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
>Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:52 AM
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 3:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> I was wondering whether there is somewhere a more verbose / more 
>> complete description of the semantic of the individual values.
>
>No, and that's deliberate.  Considering the high levels of 
>uncertainty that so often surround emergent events, the CAP 
>designers (first in the CAP Working Group and later within 
>OASIS) struggled to balance completeness against specificity.  
>There was also a concern that we could get bogged down in 
>trying to perfect the taxonomies and wind up with no standard at all.
>
>So the definitions were deliberately left somewhat open-ended 
>and contextual... some would go so far as to say "vague" and 
>I, for one, wouldn't argue.
>
>- Art
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting 
>Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the 
>OASIS Emergency Management TC.
>Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form 
>at 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbre
>v=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of 
>any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting 
>Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the 
>OASIS Emergency Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record 
>should be posted using the form at 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbre
>v=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of 
>any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Elizabeth F. Klute'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:58:16 +0300
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my question. 

If you only set the value in the category field for the purpose of human
consumption then there is not really an interoperability issue.

Now, with the work on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to "subscribe"
to certain type of events: you might indicate something like location and
the type of events you are interested in. 

Now, the semantic of the category field suddently matters. With the
individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to come up with a
description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031. 

Ciao
Hannes
 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
>Elizabeth F. Klute
>Sent: 12 July, 2009 20:28
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>Thanks Art,
>
>I was struggeling on how to answer but could not have done it better!
>Elizabeth Klute, Director Disaster Management
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: [email-masked] 
><[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; 
>[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Sun Jul 12 11:51:43 2009
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 3:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> I was wondering whether there is somewhere a more verbose / more 
>> complete description of the semantic of the individual values.
>
>No, and that's deliberate.  Considering the high levels of 
>uncertainty that so often surround emergent events, the CAP 
>designers (first in the CAP Working Group and later within 
>OASIS) struggled to balance completeness against specificity.  
>There was also a concern that we could get bogged down in 
>trying to perfect the taxonomies and wind up with no standard at all.
>
>So the definitions were deliberately left somewhat open-ended 
>and contextual... some would go so far as to say "vague" and 
>I, for one, wouldn't argue.
>
>- Art
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting 
>Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the 
>OASIS Emergency Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record 
>should be posted using the form at 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbre
>v=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of 
>any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting 
>Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the 
>OASIS Emergency Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record 
>should be posted using the form at 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbre
>v=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of 
>any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>

From: Art Botterell <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:23:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

David has it exactly.  I would expect that in some future "CAP 2.0"  
the concept of managed lists might be extended back into CAP...  
assuming interested communities start making headway on building such  
lists.

- Art

On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 9:54 AM, David Aylward (Comcare) wrote:

> Hannes:
>
> As Art says, CAP's incident list is very general.  To further Art's  
> point,
> when it came to the development of what became the OASIS EDXL  
> Distribution
> Element (DE), we faced the same issue as a primary purpose of the DE  
> is
> routing messages by incident type.  The CAP categories were far too  
> broad
> for that.
>
> So the draft requirements and specification for the DE developed by  
> the
> cross emergency domain practitioner working group developed a  
> detailed list
> of incident types for submission to the OASIS EMTC as part of its  
> request
> for the development of that standard.
>
> The EMTC wisely rejected our suggestion, thinking that (1) the work to
> create a shared incident type taxomony should be done for the US and  
> other
> countries, but hadn't been done yet, and (2) such lists of incident  
> types
> would likely change more frequently than the standard.
>
> So they adopted a flexible solution of "Managed Lists" for this and  
> similar
> list issues (e.g. roles).   Under this approach values such as  
> incident
> names appear in the standard, along with the name of the managed  
> list you
> are using.  If there is only one Managed List for that topic in the  
> world,
> great, but if there are several you can still communicate because  
> you know
> which list is being used.
>
> The absence of both initial managed lists and a repository for their
> locations is an identified gap that hopefully will be addressed  
> soon.  A
> number of us developed a project to do Managed Lists for incident  
> names and
> roles, but other priorities have gotten in the way.
>
>
>
>
> David K. Aylward, President
> COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
> 1351 Independence Court, SE
> Washington, DC 20003
> 202.255.3215 (mobile)
> 202.295.0136 (office)
> 202.521.4047 (fax)
> [email-masked]
>
> This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which  
> it is
> addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or privileged
> information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
> recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or  
> take action
> relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent  
> reply,
> should be deleted or destroyed.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Art  
> Botterell
> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 3:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> I was wondering whether there is somewhere a more verbose / more
>> complete
>> description of the semantic of the individual values.
>
> No, and that's deliberate.  Considering the high levels of uncertainty
> that so often surround emergent events, the CAP designers (first in
> the CAP Working Group and later within OASIS) struggled to balance
> completeness against specificity.  There was also a concern that we
> could get bogged down in trying to perfect the taxonomies and wind up
> with no standard at all.
>
> So the definitions were deliberately left somewhat open-ended and
> contextual... some would go so far as to say "vague" and I, for one,
> wouldn't argue.
>
> - Art
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.   
> This
> list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency  
> Management TC.
> Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
> CAP-list mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
> This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
> particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.   
> This list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency  
> Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using  
> the form at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
> CAP-list mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
> This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any  
> particular program or product other than the CAP itself.

From: "David Aylward \(Comcare\)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:54:56 -0400
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

Hannes:

As Art says, CAP's incident list is very general.  To further Art's point,
when it came to the development of what became the OASIS EDXL Distribution
Element (DE), we faced the same issue as a primary purpose of the DE is
routing messages by incident type.  The CAP categories were far too broad
for that.  

So the draft requirements and specification for the DE developed by the
cross emergency domain practitioner working group developed a detailed list
of incident types for submission to the OASIS EMTC as part of its request
for the development of that standard.

The EMTC wisely rejected our suggestion, thinking that (1) the work to
create a shared incident type taxomony should be done for the US and other
countries, but hadn't been done yet, and (2) such lists of incident types
would likely change more frequently than the standard.  

So they adopted a flexible solution of "Managed Lists" for this and similar
list issues (e.g. roles).   Under this approach values such as incident
names appear in the standard, along with the name of the managed list you
are using.  If there is only one Managed List for that topic in the world,
great, but if there are several you can still communicate because you know
which list is being used.  

The absence of both initial managed lists and a repository for their
locations is an identified gap that hopefully will be addressed soon.  A
number of us developed a project to do Managed Lists for incident names and
roles, but other priorities have gotten in the way.

 
David K. Aylward, President
COMCARE Emergency Response Technology Group
1351 Independence Court, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202.255.3215 (mobile)
202.295.0136 (office)
202.521.4047 (fax)
[email-masked]
 
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or privileged
information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action
relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply,
should be deleted or destroyed.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:52 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 3:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> I was wondering whether there is somewhere a more verbose / more  
> complete
> description of the semantic of the individual values.

No, and that's deliberate.  Considering the high levels of uncertainty  
that so often surround emergent events, the CAP designers (first in  
the CAP Working Group and later within OASIS) struggled to balance  
completeness against specificity.  There was also a concern that we  
could get bogged down in trying to perfect the taxonomies and wind up  
with no standard at all.

So the definitions were deliberately left somewhat open-ended and  
contextual... some would go so far as to say "vague" and I, for one,  
wouldn't argue.

- Art

_______________________________________________
This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This
list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.
Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
CAP-list mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list

This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
particular program or product other than the CAP itself.

From: Art Botterell <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:51:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 3:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> I was wondering whether there is somewhere a more verbose / more  
> complete
> description of the semantic of the individual values.

No, and that's deliberate.  Considering the high levels of uncertainty  
that so often surround emergent events, the CAP designers (first in  
the CAP Working Group and later within OASIS) struggled to balance  
completeness against specificity.  There was also a concern that we  
could get bogged down in trying to perfect the taxonomies and wind up  
with no standard at all.

So the definitions were deliberately left somewhat open-ended and  
contextual... some would go so far as to say "vague" and I, for one,  
wouldn't argue.

- Art

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:58:13 +0300
Subject: [earlywarning] Definition of Warning Categories

Hi all, 

I am currently looking at the <category> element found in the CAP
specification. The description says "The code denoting the category of the
subject event of the alert message" and a few values are listed as well:

"Geo" - Geophysical (inc. landslide)
"Met" - Meteorological (inc. flood)
"Safety" - General emergency and public
safety
"Security" - Law enforcement, military,
homeland and local/private security
"Rescue" - Rescue and recovery
"Fire" - Fire suppression and rescue
"Health" - Medical and public health
"Env" - Pollution and other environmental
"Transport" - Public and private
transportation
"Infra" - Utility, telecommunication, other
non-transport infrastructure
"CBRNE" - Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear or High-Yield
Explosive threat or attack
"Other" - Other events

I was wondering whether there is somewhere a more verbose / more complete
description of the semantic of the individual values. 

Ciao
Hannes

Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:08:40 -0400
From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [earlywarning] another interesting news article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-06-ealerts_N.htm

Barbara

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625