OASIS CAP Profiles Sub Committee Meeting Notes
25 April 2011
Attendees
Joerg Werner
Gregory Trott
Elysa Jones
Doug Allport
Rob Torchon
Sukumar Dwarkanath
Meeting Minutes
Greg proposed the motion and Elysa seconded
Discussion
Greg acknowledged Doug’s comments – and mentioned that the Australian Profile is based on the Canadian work. Also, he mentioned that the intent is to get the profile out of the implementation level – make it high level so that it can be applied across many systems
Sukumar asked the group to comment on the format and content of the document and if it was appropriate to move forward, based on Greg’s initial request.
Doug suggested using the Canadian CAP profile format –outline the definition of each element in the standard, and then identify the particular constraints/definitions for each element. He proposed using this template as a required template for any future proposed work. Doug mentioned that they wanted to separate the event list from technical requirements, since the event lists could change more frequently, and keeping them separate will ensure minimal changes to the specification.
Rob agreed with the idea and liked the approach. Werner asked if the template would support generic requirements, similar to those that were listed in the IPAWS Profile Requirements – he raised the idea of having a section of generic requirements, and followed by profile specific requirements.
Elysa agreed with idea of the template and the idea of mapping the IPAWS content to test the template and identify any issues.
Sukumar brought up the dissemination questions and provided the context for IPAWS and its approach since there are limitations or constraints from existing dissemination systems, such as EAS.
Greg mentioned that there were existing implementations in Australia that currently use CAPv1.1 and they have expressed a willingness of to use the CAP-AP profile, they are part of the stakeholder group. As part of the Australian Standards Development process, the profile needs to be implemented prior to formal approval. He also mentioned that the content in the Discussion Paper has been discussed last year by stakeholders and there were no discussion unresolved items.
On next step, Rob pointed out that the group seemed to have agreement on an approach – develop a template, test it using requirements from Australia/IPAWS, and finalize the template. Elysa agreed to take a first crack at the template, Greg agreed to put the Australian Profile requirements into the template, and Sukumar/Elysa would do the similar for the IPAWS requirements. The group recognized that there would be no change s to the IPAWS Profile – the exercise would merely allow the group to test the template.
Sukumar raised comments from Patti and the group discussed some of the comments:
<info> block: Greg mentioned that the intent is to follow the CAP-CP usage and he would modify the CAP-AP content accordingly. Doug pointed out that Norm had a good comment and supports both the CAP and IPAWS Profile - there are multiple event codes, but not different info blocks. Doug also mentioned that Canada would be publishing a comprehensive reference implementation guide document for the CAP-CP in the near future.
Greg agreed to review the comments offline and respond to them on the email listserv. He also suggested tracking the timelines of the process that the Sub Committee was going through to estimate timeframes for future requests.
Werner suggested using ISO country designations for the Profile names rather than ‘CP’ or ‘AP’ – while some agreed it was a good idea, Doug pointed out that there could be multiple country profiles. Sukumar raised concerns of interoperability given multiple profiles and felt it defeated the purpose of standards. The group did however point out that it was a reality and there could be multiple country or enterprise profiles. Greg mentioned that the next scope of work for Australia was developing an international event list and looking at interoperability across borders.
The next call is scheduled for May 04 at 4 PM EDT.
Greg motioned to adjourn and Werner seconded.