Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard (new proposed schema attached)

This is the same with Sahana as the organizations are used more in relation
to the contacts.

Mandana, the challenge is if you can come up with an interop standards that
supports both Sahana and the OCHA 3W to start with. We can immediately use
that to test it between the two systems and as we do we can send feedback as
to what works. I have attended interop workshops in the past with IBM, BEA
and Microsoft (on WS-Trust, WS-Security), were were were all put into a room
and asked to hack our implementations against the standards define and
ensure our systems work with each other. Just coming up with a standard and
implementing it in the system does not guarantee it will work as is, so it
is good to keep this as pragmatic as possible.

Chamindra

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Paolo Palmero <palmero@un.org> wrote:

> Dear Mandana,
>
> The physical entity of an organization (offices) are used more with
> relation to contacts rather than activities.   As far as activities are
> concerned we  are generally interested in where the activity is happening
> rather than the physical location of the organization that is executing it.
> I hope this clarifies how we use and structured the 3W. Please let us know
> if you have any questions or need any clarifications on OCHA's 3W.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paolo
> (See attached file: 3w_DB_Schema_Ver_Proposed.vsd)
>
> Paolo Palmero
> Information Management Officer (GIS)
> Field Information Services Unit (AIMB)
> United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
> DC1-1358, One UN Plaza,  New York, NY 10017
> Tel: +1-917-367-5424
> Mobile: +1-917-349-4506
> Skype: palmerop
> Email: palmero@un.org
> http://ochaonline.un.org/
>
>
>
>             public-xg-eiif@w3
>             .org
>             Sent by:                                                   To
>             public-xg-eiif-re         "public-xg-eiif"
>             quest@w3.org              <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
>                                                                        cc
>
>             04-08-08 03:26                                        Subject
>                                       Re: Requirement for 3W interop
>                                       standard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Paola and all,
>
> Sounds like in OCHA schema, Organization is more of a conceptual entity
> than physical entity (ie physically located). Offices are the ones involved
> directly in the activities and indirectly link OrgPerson to the
> organization. However we should consider the situations where local
> agencies help with response activities, for example, or where volunteers
> are part of the task force. Offices work in general sectors (ie provide
> general services) but they have specific responsibilities in the context of
> a given activities. I agree that some naming don't represent the concepts
> very well. It would be more helpful, if you could be more specific. As we
> get other schemas, we will refine the concepts too.
>
> Regards,
> Mandana,
>
>
>
> From: paola.dimaio@gmail.com
> Sent:. Friday, August 01, 2008 8:03 PM
> To: Mandana Sotoodeh
> Cc: public-xg-eiif
> Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard
>
> Mandana, Paolo
>
> Great great thanks for starting this up, it looks like there are some
> conceptual challenges ahead
>
> I am looking at the diagram on the fly (did not study in depth), and have a
> few questions
>
> 1. I can see no link between organisation and orgperson, should there be a
> relationship there? I am not sure if orgperson main relation should be
> office, sound weak
>
> 2. does Location not have any attributes? should there be something written
> in the box
>
> 3. service links to orgperson with relationship -hasobjectives- not sure I
> understand, a few other relations seem brittle
>
> 4. I wonder if there is a rule as to how to name in the singular/plural the
> entities and the relationships and attributes (sing or plu, should be
> constant?), as well as the choice of names for them, if should be made more
> logical and consistent as much as possible
> I wonder if the relationships whould have names more semantically alighed
> with the entities they relate to, less ambiguous kind of thing
>
> will study further
>
> thanks again
>
> best
>
> PDM
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Mandana Sotoodeh <mandanas@ece.ubc.ca>
> wrote:
>  Hello everyone,
>
>  Please find the main concepts derived from OCHA schema here:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/wiki/images/7/71/W3-Model.pdf.
>
>  Renato kindly organized them graphically.
>
>  Paolo, thank you for providing the documents.
>
>  Your feedback is appreciated: if you have any specific scenario in mind
>  (in the boundary of W3) that you think the model may not address well;
>  such as volunteers or activities for day to day emergency operations
>  (like drug abuse) as opposed to emergency response (like evacuation), or
>  any suggestions for naming of concepts (ex. office or emergency). As we
>  get other schemas/models, we will revise it accordingly.
>
>  Thanks very much,
>
>  Mandana
>
>
>
>  From: Renato Iannella
>  Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 4:29 PM
>  To: public-xg-eiif
>  Cc: Vincent Lalieu
>  Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard
>
>
>  On 9 Jul 2008, at 18:46, Paul Currion wrote:
>
>        The 3W / W3 schema can be found at
>
> http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/imtoolbox/02_Standard_Products/01_W3/3W_Tool/3wSchema2_0.pdf
> .
>
>  Thanks Paul.
>
>  This is a good opportunity to review the Use Case [1] against the OCHA
>  Schema and determine any gaps.
>  Then look at the outcome and move towards defining the *core8 elements of
>  a W3/3W "standard".
>  Any volunteers to take this on?
>
>  Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>  NICTA
>
>  [1] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/wiki/WWWWCoord>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT
> www.mfu.ac.th
> *********************************************