Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

["James M. Polk" <jmpolk at cisco.com>]

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)
> daylward at comcare.org
>
> 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: cap-list-bounces at lists.incident.com
> [mailto:cap-list-bounces at lists.incident.com] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
> To: earlywarning at ietf.org; cap-list at incident.com
> 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
> CAP-list at lists.incident.com
> 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
> earlywarning at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning