Re: review all terms by cluster? refine the clusters? copyright? [was] Re: Proposal for a domain

Craig,
thanks for the extensive illustrations and suggestions re process

I like the idea of the clusters and starting working with existing UN
taxonomy

could you distil the process from your interesting discussion below, and
produce in more algorithmic form perhaps? something like one line per action
then we can discuss it in more detail

it would be useful to have a link inserted whenever we are referencing
something external

thanks!
PDM

On 6/22/07, C H <craighubleyca@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (I request that we actually update our subject lines,
> using "[was]" to clarify which thread they came from)
>
> ----
> SUMMARY (of this post only)
>
> The constraints on an ontology to be used for machine
> reasoning are very different than those on definitions
> used by human beings with specific training.  What the
> UN and legal authorities have done is useful to start
> but is not disjunctive/operational enough to define a
> list of processes, activities and transactions that a
> W3 ontology enables.  More refinement will be needed,
> both from stakeholders (as Paola suggests) but also to
> determine how clusters emerge and how many
> perspectives on one problem are efficiently combined
> to ensure all are consulted before major decisions.
>
> In any case we need a plan for how to review terms.
>
> I suggest the following refined clusters to organize
> the (excellent, thorough) list of terms Gavin
> published
> at
> http://www.plan.net.nz/wiki/index.php/Category:Terms
>
>     * camp coordination and management (arrivals and
>       departures, internal security and inventory)
>     * recovery (focusing on the early phases but with
>       clarity on when resilience processes take over)
>     * shelter (emergency housing and evacuations)
>     * grid (emergency telecommunications and power and
>       the specific protocols and skills to keep 'em
> up)
>     * health (including aid personnel, remote experts)
>     * logistics (including GPS, movement of aid/help)
>     * nutrition (including feeding of aid personnel)
>     * protection (including credentials, evacuations)
>     * water and sanitation (including aid personnel)
>     * resilience (all auditing and risk measurements
>       that describe the long-term situation
> developing)
>
> I elaborate them somewhat below, as a guess at their
> scope, and suggest that each of the terms Gavin has
> identified could fit under one (or at most three) of
> them.  Even if this is only an ad hoc means of review.
>
> Each cluster seems to be a particular profession or a
> perspective that enables applying particular skills or
> techniques.
>
> In the long run, clusters could be identified simply
> by noting who gets involved in what type of decision.
>
> Copyright issues should be minimal or nil if we all
> agree that our contributions are to be released under
> Creative Commons attribution-sharealike-noncommercial
> license at some future point, and withheld from those
> who do not accept these release terms.  A commercial
> user may use the material simply for remitting any and
> all patent, trademark, copyright and domain name right
> they may have in terms essential to the ontology's
> use.
> Until this is worked out, we own our own
> contributions.
>
> ------
>
> --- paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:
> > to analyse the terms one by one, or ten by ten, say,
> > and see if we want to use them as they are given
> > or amend them for adoption in this group
>
> I don't see what logical coherence "tens" have that
> "clusters" do not.  The UN Office for the Coordination
> of Humanitarian Affairs has given us a breakdown of
> how to classify processes, and I think we should use
> it (but please, you MUST use lowercase in mediawiki,
> any other convention inhibits linking from pages)
>
>     * camp coordination and management
>     * early recovery
>     * emergency shelter
>     * emergency telecommunications
>     * health
>     * logistics
>     * nutrition
>     * protection
>     * water and sanitation
>
> Under these clusters we should/must apply a
> process/activity/transaction pattern structure such as
> OASIS uses.  That is, each cluster provides a
> perspective on a set of processes.  Each activity is
> part of at least one process.  Each transaction is
> part of at least one activity and its success or
> failure is described only in terms of the activities
> that it enables.
>
> > The purpose of this evaluation is to allow a wider
> > community, with different perspectives to
> > make a contribution to the terminology, and helps us
> > evolve, and refine the vocabulary if necessary
>
> For that we must continue to rely on public wikis, not
> a mailing list.  The vocabulary does need refining but
> not for social acceptance, but rather, for rigour.
>
> The terminology Gavin has compiled is suitable only
> for directing HUMANS who are performing tasks they are
> trained in, NOT suitable for machine inference.  There
> is really no chance at all that the definitions will
> be usable in a W3 ontology in the form in which they
> are received from legal and organizational sources
> EXCEPT those that describe mere data items that are
> never going to be reasoned about.
>
> A P-code, for instance, may be described on a map to a
> human, but must be precisely delineated as GPC co-ords
> for a machine so that a simple function can return the
> P-code a given coordinate is in, and the distance from
> the centre of the P-code or from a border with
> another.
>
> Getting to these more precise definitions will not be
> easy.  I agree with Paola it should be done slowly but
> there's really no reason not to use Gavin's wiki (if
> its accomodating of say a CC-by-sa or CC-by-nc-sa type
> license) to work them out (I'd suggest CC-by-nc-sa and
> any commercial organization that agrees to surrender
> its rights in the ontology and certain derived works
> receives a commercial license to use it, others
> don't).
>
> That solves the copyright problem:  Refined precise
> versions of the terms are available for use to any
> commercial organization that remits its own
> improvements under a CC-by-nc-sa license and accepts a
> commercial license to use them freely as long as any
> improvements are remitted and other rights (such as
> patent rights or trademark in any term incorporated in
> the ontology) are remitted to W3 in perpetuity.  (If
> not for these additional rights and abuses we could
> use CC-by-sa or GFDL).
>
> > Secondly, it would help us make decisions regard the
> > copyright, as you say
> > there might be problems there - only if we decide to
> > adopt that given term
> > precisely as it is given, we need to worry about
> > permission - if we come up
> > with our own concoction, I dont think we need to
> > worry although we may want
> > to make our references public
>
> I'd say, don't worry about it, the non-commercial
> organizations should be sharing their work under
> CC-by-nc-sa anyway, and the commercial ones can only
> adopt W3 works under reasonable and stable licensing
> terms.
>
> If there's any reason for concern or anyone knows of a
> non-commercial organization that actually sues over a
> re-use of a definition or term, then everyone involved
> could sign an agreement that they INTEND to remit the
> work under CC-by-nc-sa at a future date but meanwhile
> have agreed to WITHHOLD their work from parties that
> claim commercial rights in definitions essential to
> disaster management, until such time as they agree to
> participate in a common licensing regime / consortium.
>
> That way, holdouts will see this rising tide of public
> work that they are explicitly forbidden from re-using
> because of their legal stance, and will therefore come
> under pressure to change that stance.
>
> Commercial organizations are harder to pressure, but,
> if the material is CC-by-nc-sa, then the only way they
> can use it is to agree to the W3 consortium's terms.
>
> > if we agree roughly with this process, we could
> > selecting the first batch
> > would that be an alphabetical exercise, or a
> > logical/semantic exercise?
>
> I suggest the latter, and further suggest that we need
> a slight expansion of scope, and a "tenth cluster".
>
> The US military, in my opinion correctly, has lumped
> "telecommunications" and the power that they require
> into a general term "grid".  I'd like to replace the
> cluster "emergency telecommunications" with "grid" so
> that it implicitly includes the power required to run
> the telecom system and all the other powered devices.
>
> I'd also like to ensure that management and auditing
> concerns don't get dumped into "logistics" which must
> be reserved for actual movements of actual goods and
> persons via transport networks.  It's hard to know
> where a term like "risk management" fits.
>
> I think the safest term is "resilience" because this
> implies attempts to prevent disasters and to learn
> from mistakes, and an overall risk reduction process,
> and would include training in the terminology or the
> protocols required to minimize damage in the future.
> It implies handing off control to locals and leaving
> as much as possible in their hands.
>
> Finally, I'd advocate a few changes that accomodate
> resilience thinking, like removing "emergency" from
> "shelter" as some of these things end up in use for a
> very long time, and resilience advises finding ways to
> anticipate long-term adjustments and prepare for them.
>
> That leaves these ten clusters, with some guesses as
> to what kinds of processes might be "clustered" under
> each one;  These could be compared to both UN
> Inter-Agency Standing Committee and say NZ and US
> definitions
>
>     * camp coordination and management (arrivals and
>       departures, internal security and inventory)
>          - once something is accepted into the camp's
>            manifest or inventory it's no longer part
>            of the other clusters? are camps
> effectively
>            groups of cooperating households under some
>            temporary authority, or some semblance of a
>            village authority?  with some legal status?
>          - lifecycle of camp from initial selection of
>            location (from many) to final shutdown and
>            passing-off of records to local resilience
>          - communicating negotiated agreements and any
>            complaints or challenges about other
> aspects
>            of relief/recovery/reconstruction affecting
>            camp residents, acting as residents
> advocate
>            (e.g. if rebuilding compromises their lands
>            or in case a rival group enroaches on them)
>            - or is this part of protection or
> recovery?
>     * recovery (focusing on the early phases but with
>       clarity on when resilience processes take over)
>          - identifying damaged infrastructure which is
>            possible to save with early intervention,
>            and prioritizing this to minimize later
> work
>          - identifying lost human capital assets and a
>            gap in authority or expertise that results,
>            and possibly mitigating efforts like school
>            building or recruiting foreign volunteers?
>          - initiating peacemaking processes between
> any
>            groups in conflict during the disaster -
> not
>            very easy to differentiate from protection?
>     * shelter (emergency housing and evacuations)
>          - ensuring everyone has cover over their head
>            to sleep, protection from insects/moisture/
>            cold/sun, and storage for key possessions
>          - identifying long term housing that can be
>            occupied and possibly later purchased, to
>            serve quarantine, isolation or services to
>            family during extended hospitalizations -
>            or was this called "emergency shelter" to
>            specifically exclude any such arrangements?
>          - arranging orderly movements among shelters
>            and maximum compatibility of those sharing
>            - or is this considered a camp concern or
>            even protection (abuses inside the tent)?
>     * grid (emergency telecommunications and power and
>       the specific protocols and skills to keep 'em
> up)
>          - hard to differentiate this from backup
> power
>          - Internet connectivity between aid personnel
>            and mission-critical systems local or
> global
>          - credentials and identities of personnel who
>            perform authentication and credentials
> tasks
>          - electric power backups and alternate means
>            to pass life-critical signals if these fail
>          - any non-telecom means to move signals to
> the
>            telecom-capable (carrier pigeons, notes
> from
>            local authorities, paper forms) and
> protocol
>            to reliably pass them on via radio,
> Internet
>     * health (including aid personnel, remote experts)
>          - identifying any systemic health risks that
>            existed prior to the disaster and persist
>          - identify any aggravated/propagated/created
>            by the disaster;
>          - identifying external expertise required and
>            local data to be gathered by field
> personnel
>            to aid identification of a disease or
> spread
>          - identifying surge capacity limits and when
>            they have been exceeded, relief priorities
>            for medical personnel, anticipating supply
>            outages and resupplying before they're out?
>     * logistics (including GPS, movement of aid/help)
>          - if more than one of them has to move, or
>            if one of them has to move more than once,
>            it's logistics;  (excluding the victims
>            except for those who participate in aid)
>          - all requests, orders, labelling, tracking,
>            authenticating, delivering, and
> transporting
>            (very heavy interaction with the grid which
>            should be capable of tracking all of this,
>            there must be many intersections between?)
>          - standing orders that can be diverted to a
>            more urgent purpose, verified orders that
>            cannot be?
>          - physical control and tracking of vehicles?
>     * water and sanitation (including aid personnel)
>          - tracking where potable water comes from,
>            ensuring optimal use of this, spotting a
>            likely shortage and resupplying in advance?
>          - identifying water sources actually used
>            and instituting testing and safety programs
>            even if these are inadvisable water sources
>          - identifying waste water and sewage streams
>            and tracking e.coli (for instance) to
> source
>            (more the duty of water than health
> people?)
>          - ensuring good animal watering and pasturing
>            practices to avoid doing damage to sources
>          - building permanent cistern/sewage systems
>            where this is simpler than relying on more
>            temporary solutions and will free effort or
>            temporary rigs (water trucks, port-a-johns)
>            - an obvious interaction with early
> recovery
>     * nutrition (including feeding of aid personnel)
>          - identifying numbers and cultural
> constraints
>            for appropriate supply of compatible meals
>          - ensuring food actually reaches those hungry
>          - discovering malnutrition, hoarding, abuses
>            such as profiteering, and then compensating
>            - obviously involves also health/protection
>          - identifying long-term nutritional
> challenges
>            (lost arable land, farmers forced out, lost
>            livestock, no funds to buy seeds, and etc.)
>            - obviously involves recovery & resilience
>     * protection (including credentials, evacuations)
>          - physical security of the grid and water and
>            any health-critical facilities (hospitals)
>          - security of camp borders, and aid vehicles
>            and supplies, to avoid looting or stealing
>          - communicating decisions not to protect or
>            to facilitate otherwise unauthorized
> actions
>            (allowing hungry people to "loot" a grocery
>            store on grounds the food is going bad,
> etc)
>          - identifying any inter-factional conflicts
> or
>            criminal activities exploiting the
> disaster?
>            or is this ruled out for political reasons?
>          - identifying local groups suppressing danger
>            or discouraging exploitation of the
> disaster
>            and the help that they require to continue
>            - an obvious intersection with resilience?
>          - broadcasting assurances and how to get help
>            so people feel more confident and secure
>          (and if this includes actual peacemaking
> then)
>          - systematically searching out abuses of
> power
>            by people in positions of military or
> police
>            authority, or those "in charge" otherwise,
>            so as to apply pressure via sanctions like
> a
>            withholding of certain aid or to run a
> guns-
>            for-food or guns-for-shelter program or
> etc.
>          - creative conflict resolution methods, such
>            as organizing games and recreational trips
>
>     * resilience (all auditing and risk measurements
>       that describe the long-term situation
> developing)
>          - risk assessments involving more than one of
>            the above cluster or interactions between
>          - conflicts with long-term authorities or a
>            powerful local group with informal
> authority
>            likely to persist past the disaster relief
>          - ensuring documentation of early recovery
>            efforts sufficient for long-term efforts to
>            maintain and improve what has been started
>          - maintaining vulnerable persons lists and a
>            manifest of what they owned or brought with
>            them to camps, especially identifable items
>            that could help identify looters or abuses
>          - identifying all single points of failure
> and
>            actual failures of key grid, water, sewage
>            and shelter systems that may have cost
> lives
>          - overall morbidity and value of life
> analysis
>            to determine whether aid was optimally used
>          - identifying informal roles and volunteers
> to
>            be recognized and trained or credentialled
>          - identifying capability and surge capacity
>            gaps that would occur in a similiar
> disaster
>          - understanding the lifecycle of the disaster
>
> If you're looking for just one to start with, try
> nutrition, as it's the easiest to separate from all
> the others, and the least affected by resilience (you
> can't reasonably expect people to grow food for their
> own use in an emergency, it'll primarily be imported).
>
> I already outlined (previous note) what the grid does,
> though I didn't deal at all with credentials and the
> logistics of getting telecom gear into place, on which
> questions I defer to the latest US work on this.  Nor
> with protecting that grid against sabotage or
> overload.
>
> Every one of these clusters probably has a dozen or
> more distinct identifiable processes "under" it.  I
> think the best way to think of the cluster is that it
> is a perspective of a particular profession or set of
> skills, and accordingly many processes (those that
> need multiple professions and diverse skills involved)
> are going to be classified under multiple clusters.
>
> It should even be possible to identify, based on
> actual analysis of transcripts of communications and
> field anecdotes, exactly which types of people get
> involved in which types of situations, and so identify
> the clusters empirically.  Which I'm sure is where the
> UN list comes from.  But the clusters won't stay the
> same as professions and roles and resilience
> approaches change, so stating how they are derived is important.
>
>
>
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
> Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
>



-- 



Paola Di Maio *****
School of Information Technology
Mae Fah Luang University
Chiang Rai - Thailand
*********************************************