Docstoc

OASIS Profiles SC Meeting Notes - 2011-05-04 - APPROVED

Document Sample
OASIS Profiles SC Meeting Notes - 2011-05-04 - APPROVED Powered By Docstoc
					              OASIS CAP Profiles Sub Committee Meeting Notes – APPROVED on 11 May 2011

                                              4 May 2011

Attendees

Sukumar Dwarkanath

Elysa Jones

Gregory Trott

Rob Torchon

Doug Allport

Rex Brooks

Gary Timm



25 April 2011 Meeting Minutes

As the meeting began, Sukumar posted updated minutes reflecting Greg’s changes to the previous notes
(labeled “#2” on SC webpage). Elysa moved and Rob seconded to approve the amended minutes.
Minutes approved by unanimous vote.



Action Items from 25 April Meeting

- Elysa to draft a profile template

- Sukumar and Elysa to test the template by mapping IPAWS profile into it

- Greg to map Australian Profile requirements into template as a test as well



Discussion

Elysa reported that she has not yet finished the template, but has begun prep work of reviewing CAP-CP
and CAP-AP. She feels the CAP-CP format would be a good start for a template.

Greg agrees, and has already started mapping CAP-AP into the CAP-CP template format in anticipation.

Elysa pointed out we need a name other than “template” to avoid confusion with OASIS’ use of this
term. After considering “matrix”, “model” and “mapping”, we decided on “outline”.
There was a comment on Australia mapping Info blocks to dissemination means. Greg said they are
reverting to the Canadian model on that.

Patti’s questions and Greg’s responses were discussed. Greg’s only remaining question is, “What does
CAP extension mean?” Rex explained that is adding a parameter or attribute to a basic model, where a
profile drops things that are not needed. Rex suggested Greg may want to look at Tactical Situation
Object (TSO), which Greg said he is doing. Greg thanked everyone so far for all the comments.

Sukumar asked for discussion of the next step after the Outline is developed. IPAWS Profile stopped at
the Committee Specification level, which is now called Committee Specification Draft (CSD) – do we stop
there with CAP-AP? Greg had concerns with the timeline.

Elysa agreed with the CSD level so that OASIS would include it in their library, and felt we could
accomplish that in 3 months.

There was discussion over whether we want the document to go through a public review. Greg said he
does not want a public review in the interest of time. There will be no public review in Australia, only
review by CAP users in government, industry and NGOs. Elysa wants to be sure we can post a document
on OASIS site without public review. Rex says we can. Greg commented that OASIS need not post it as
Australia will be posting it, but Elysa and Sukumar felt there should at least be a link on the OASIS site.
Greg said he would then need to check on a distribution license for this content from the Australian site.

Doug suggested all would be simpler if we could just look at the CAP-AP document and say we find no
issues, and Greg added that is all he wants. However, Elysa feels there is value in having a library of
documents in the same format on the OASIS site. She added that the OASIS process is that the TC must
vote on any OASIS-posted document, not just the SC.

After much discussion on the process we decided a likely path would be for Greg to put his document
into our Outline format, the SC vets the document and puts it into OASIS CSD format and Australia votes
on the CSD-formatted document before the OASIS TC votes on it so the OASIS TC vote would yield the
final version acceptable to all parties.

Doug doesn’t think Canada would ascribe to this process, as they don’t want someone else to own their
profile. After ongoing discussion, we concluded we may need to have flexibility in the process to
accommodate each county’s needs.

Greg mentioned that he would like to keep the OASIS logo on the document Australia posts.

ACTION ITEM: Elysa will check with Jamie at OASIS on the joint document ownership question.

There were discussions on how the document would then be updated and maintained. Elysa felt a joint
OASIS/Australia agreement would then be needed. If Australia updates the profile and sends to OASIS
and there are objections, we could end up with two versions. Rob pointed out that if countries want the
OASIS approval, they must adhere to OASIS policies. Sukumar offered that if this tighter connection with
OASIS is desired, the process gets more involved.
Sukumar suggested we all mull everything over for suggested recommendations at our next meeting.
He concluded that the reality may be that we may need to take different approaches for different
countries. Elysa added that there are many avenues we could take, such as developing a web tool for
the OASIS website to help countries pre-test their profiles before beginning our process.

ACTION ITEM: Elysa is planning to have an Outline to present to the SC by our next meeting.

Greg felt that a next meeting two weeks from now would stress his timeline, so the SC decided to meet
in one week, on 11 May 2011 at 4:00 EDT.

ACTION ITEM: Sukumar or Elysa to add this new meeting to Kavi.

Rex moved and Doug seconded to adjourn at 5:07PM EDT.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:2/13/2012
language:
pages:3