Description
At the September 13th, 2011 meeting of the Emergency Management Infrastructure Framework Subcommittee, the members discussed the following topics:
1. TOPIC: Should we use a checksum or identifier to allow those who download our schema to ensure the schema are valid? (Answer: This is a good suggestion by Martena. After the meeting, Jeff sent an email to the RIM recommending discussion of this suggestion with a recommendation to go to the EM TC.)
2. TOPIC: What issues were found when integrating the latest version of the common components (common types, EDXL CIQ Profile, and EDXL GML SimpleFeatures) into the DE 2.0 schema and examples? (Answer: Only a couple minor issues: (a) the possibility that the common types for convenience and commonality should contain an element for geopolitical locations (EDXLGeoPoliticalLocation) which could be referenced like the one for geo locations (edxl-gsf:EDXLGeoLocation); (b) the potentially confusing use of the “ct:” prefix which in some of our schema refers to the CIQ common types and sometimes the EDXL common types; (c) whether multiple TargetAreas should be unioned and whether the top TargetArea represents the preferred area. The resolution of the TargetArea question was to put in the comments of our specification that if multiple TargetArea elements are used, then the top one represents precedence, but if multiple geo locations exist in one TargetArea element, then those should be unioned. This provides clarity and flexibility. )
3. TOPIC: Should “certainty”, “urgency” and “severity” be included in the DE for aiding routing and filtering of messages? (Answer: The consensus was to include these elements in the next draft DE 2.0 schema as ValueLists with defaults. This will allow everyone to have a chance to see how they would be included and function. Jeff will add these to the draft schema and the draft specification and upload next Tuesday for review before our next meeting.)
