- From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 04:42:49 -0700
- To: "Chamindra de Silva" <chamindra@opensource.lk>
- Cc: "Paolo Palmero" <palmero@un.org>, public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Hi Chamindra I am not sure I agree with your suggested approach. This group, and its valuable resources should try to work with schemas which are universally implementable, and not to produce schemas that are 'system dependent', especially when the system in question, such as Sahana, does not a particular conceptual or even metadata architecture in place. So if you want to make Sahana interoperable with Ocha, thats great i suggest you use your own project resources (and Mandana is surely happy to volunteer...) - and that we as EIIF should gather a shortlist of 'industry standards' to model upon, there is plenty of work to be done. I would not want to see this group effort too influenced by your own interest in promoting and improving your 'favoaurite' project. Am I wrong? Apologies if this comes across as very direct, you know that I say what I think, :-) PDM On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Chamindra de Silva <chamindra@opensource.lk> wrote: > 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 >> ********************************************* > -- Paola Di Maio School of IT www.mfu.ac.th *********************************************
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2008 11:43:26 UTC