Ok...To summarize where I think we stand:
We are trying to figure out the root element and its relationship to the simple sitrep.
Our options:
1. Make the SimpleSitRep its own message
Pros:
Easy
Doesn't affect root element required elements
Isolates it
Cons:
Multiple Schema Files
May result in everyone just using the simplesitrep
Will cause duplication of elements
2. Make the SimpleSitRep a report type
Pros:
One schema
Uses the composition design pattern
May allow for better extendibility
Cons:
We may run into required vs. optional root element elements across the report types
May make the simplesitrep confusing
People may still just use simplesitrep
Options to address 1/2:
Message Matrix
Pros:
May solve our required element dilemma for root element
Cons:
IMO this is VERY confusing and is a bad idea
I'm sure I missed stuff in here...please feel free to add in content before today's chat
-Don
Office: 315-838-2669
Cell: 315-383-1197
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:58 AM
To: Timothy Grapes
Cc: McGarry, Donald P.;
Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] RE: Prep for today's meeting
Basically the reason we didn't plough on was that we finished going
through the Element Reference Model in the meeting on 3/23/2010, except
for the supporting package which we don't really need to make decisions
about wrt need/notneed any elements for a basic sitrep message schema
separate from reference, common types and pre-defined messages.
We didn't have enough key people to make the decision about this key issue.
What we need to decide is if we have enough or any elements that would
be used in the basic sitrep message that are not part of the elements we
have identified as belonging to the reference set. We also do not have
the meeting notes from 3/23/2010 which should have that reference set.
Cheers,
Rex
Timothy Grapes wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> Our SitRep meeting is on for today. A quick note before hitting the road...
>
> I'm just back and catching up. Not sure why the last meeting didn't
> fly, but this and any process should be able to move forward without
> any one person.
>
> If you have time, perhaps we should review the last 3-4 meeting
> minutes and emails to re-ground where we are, the issues at hand, and
> where we're trying to go. For starters on the call, we may want to
> then re-visit process steps required to get there. I think part of
> getting over the current hump is the need to do some independent work
> between meetings, but I and I think everyone has been too busy. I do
> think we can move forward much more quickly if we can break through
> the current log jam.
>
> On today's call If we can re-ground in our process / steps, and then
> do what we can on this call today, I can make time this week to dive
> into detail that I haven't been able to get to.
>
> */Thanks,/**//*
>
> */Tim Grapes/*
>
> */Evotec/*
>
> "The only thing we take into the next life is our character"
>
> *From:* McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:05 AM
> *To:* Timothy Grapes
> *Subject:* Prep for today's meeting
>
> Tim-
>
> I can't remember when your out of office said you would be back in. If
> you are planning to hold the msg¬ call today I'd like to do a
> little prep beforehand...
>
> When we last met I remember there was confusion about the root element
> / simple sitrep and the hierarchy of everything. What were your
> thoughts on this and how can I help you to re-bucketize some of the
> "stuff" to proceed?
>
> Don McGarry
>
> The MITRE Corp.
>
> Office: 315-838-2669
>
> Cell: 315-383-1197
>
> <mailto:>
>
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
