Re: [atoca] The future of atoca

[Art Botterell <[e-mail]>]

Tony, I've always thought of CAP as an instance of an event message, as distinguished from a state message (e.g., a SITREP).  Can't say I've belabored the distinction, but in general I think an event message is mainly meaningful in terms of when it arrives, while a state message is more meaningful as a snapshot from the time it was sent.  (Rare, of course, is the pure example of either class.)

I'll leave it to smarter folks to draw that line more clearly, but I've seen a number of instances where system-level conversations got confused because some folks were using an eventing model and other folks were thinking in terms of a representation of system state.

Anyway, seems like we're getting a lot of topical silos that are all trying to either, a) trigger activity somewhere else (frequently with some situational context), or b) offer information about some state of affairs (perhaps implying a particular call-to-action, but more often not.)

- Art


On Jul 21, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:

> Hi Art,
> 
> Good admonitions.
> 
> As someone who participates significantly in the
> MILE group (ironically dealing with incidents),
> I'm curious if anyone has contemplated treating
> an emergency warning message as simply a
> specialized instance of incident messages,
> and potentially using IODEF SCI to move
> CAP messages under that aegis?
> 
> There is a certain irony in Q4/17 (from which
> I'm about to depart), that they are both within
> that same group.
> 
> best,
> tony
> 
> 
> On 7/21/2012 1:41 PM, Art Botterell wrote:
>> Mark makes the essential point, IMHO.  This working group may simply have been ahead of its time.  So if the WG format isn't appropriate... I don't really have an opinion on that... I hope we can find some way to keep a less formal conversation going among folks who are interested, in anticipation that relevant issues may come clear over the next few years.
>> 
>