CAP SC Meeting December 29, 2014

Meeting Attendees

CompanyNameRole

Pacific Disaster CenterDavid AskovVoting Member

IndividualRex BrooksVoting Member

IndividualEliot ChristianVoting Member

IndividualElysa JonesVoting Member

Environment CanadaNorm PaulsenVoting Member

A quorum of voting members was in attendance. Elysa Jones chaired the meeting and acted as secretary. The meeting minutes from December 15 were reviewed. Eliot moved to approve the minutes as drafted, Rex seconded. The minutes were approved with all in favour.

The meeting began with a continued discussion of proposals in response to Issue 34.

On 12/17 after our last meeting, Norm posted an updated document ( to the CAP-SC list that includes all proposal options suggested regarding how event information should be documented in the specification. No one was aware of any input from Art regarding these choices.

Eliot summarized the proposals; options 3and 4 for adding the eventInfo to the alertInfo block are two ways of achieving the same thing, all will be a change in what we have now. Elysa said it seems from the discussion that options 3 and 4 would provide more expandability but 1 is simpler. Norm added that is a good summary, David as well. Options 3 and 4 will allow you to add more meta-data. Eliot said he would not be comfortable with 3 or 4 at all. Jake and David would be strongly for 3 and 4 going forward. Simplicity vs expressiveness is the challenge.

Elysa inserted when this is presented to the EM-TC all these changes will result in a CAP 2.0, not CAP 1.3 as none of them are backward compatible. David said he also thought there was a group of members who were not in favor of any options for change at this time. Eliot said something ought to be done as different organizations are finding workarounds such that at least these are done in a standardized way, perhaps a best-practices recommendation. Norm agrees with Elliot’s comment with some difference. The parameter is used now and is a “catch-all” but he is not so sure it is a workaround for a lot of people. Norm agrees this should be addressed in a common way but also that it should have a specific place.

Rex agrees but feels that if it is a given that any change will warrant a 2.0, there is another conversation we need to have regarding other issues for which we have held disposition on this point. Should we consider having a meeting devoted to developing a common approach to problematic areas so that we are consistent with how we approach things? Same design regarding strategy of going forward with changes to CAP. Event/alert is one but there mayalso be other elements, semantics, etc. that are event oriented and others alert oriented. Norm said that if we do an eventIfor approach, then a good chunk of the issues that revolve around this could be addressed in that one activity.

Elliot takes issue with opening all issues that would call for a 2.0 and spend time working on what would be a fundamental model change. It has taken 10 years to get to this point with CAP adoption, if such changes are made, adoption delays will occur and people will be confused about multiple versions. Profiles are already a problem. What will result is more harmful than good. Norm agrees. Eliot mentioned that the new Samsung Galaxy Note phone he uses has a CAP capability. Where are they getting their implementation information? Norm added that when vendors build to a US/IPAWS profile it causes problems in Canada. Elliot asked if there was a way we could get our hands around what people are doing, Brazil and China, for example. Norm said the best thing for CAP is to use working systems in use every day from which to develop best practices. Elliot expects use in additional Countries will double in the next year. David said that we have on the call today only a soft quorum and in the case of adoption, it seems the “do nothing option still has a case.” Elysa noted that Steve (Google), Gary (IPAWS), Mike (NWS) and Nuwan (Sahana) who are usual attendees are not on the call. Rex added that Adoption is a task no matter but work on a new CAP could cause difficulties. Eliot suggested that what we need to move forward requires input from CAP implementers. This can be a topic at the next CAP workshop in Rome Sept 23-25. Norm suggested this be a focus where organizations can come forward with how they have or are planning to accommodate event information in their implementations. Eliotasked if we should raise this topic to the TC to see if anyone has support for an immediate problem to be solved, then come forward, otherwise we hold disposition on Issue 34 until we can get more information on the best way to proceed from implementers at the workshop.

Eliot asked if we would have our meeting Jan 5. Rex suggested we should and all agreed.

The meeting concluded with Eliot moving to adjourn and Norm seconding, all in favour.

Respectfully submitted,

Elysa Jones, Chair OASIS EM-TC

Substituting for Jacob as Chair CAP-SC