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

Paul


, WHO should be the person affected by the event, as that is the
center of the universe when some emergency occurr, not the
ORGANISATIONs who  delivers the service

Please explain to me where is it stated that the person affected by
the event, should not be even mentioned in the 3w (thats the main flaw
in my view)

a model that does not include the person affect by the event is
lacking something critical, imho

however, that aside,

the whole 3w thing can be read in different ways.

The view you take below is organizationa centric, that is, the center
of the model is the organizational structure - thats what is causing a
lot of inefficiencies in the service information flow, cause the whole
process seems determined by the role of the organisation

 lets try this instead (just as exercise)

WHAT = 1) EVENT (type,  (WHERE),  other variables )
              2) RESOURCEoffered (required to alleviate.mitigatethe
effect of the event)
              3) RESOURCEneeded

WHERE= Location of EVENT
                Location of RELIEF ENTITY
                Location of RESOURCEo/RESOURCEn

WHO 1 =  Person affected by EVENT (WHERE, other variables)
WHO 2 =  RELIEF ENTITY (type (PERSON OR ORGANISATION), stucture, WHERE
location, RESOURCEO,RESOURCEN, contact, other info)


I am sure the above could be improved further

In principle, you could map any use of the 3w schema as made by ocha
for example, onto this generic schema, which is designed to represent
the whole EM supply chain and not just part of it, - this means that
OCHA does not have to change its internal structure to work with such
a schema, which is designed to serve multiple purposes without
carrying the bias and limitations of any particular structure


see what I mean?

PDM





On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Paul Currion <paul@currion.net> wrote:
>
> Below:
>
> Mandana Sotoodeh wrote:
>>
>> 1- Organization like Red Cross may set up local offices depending on the
>> type of activities or given emergency. However could we have independent
>> local offices which participate in an activity,  for example, by providing
>> fund or resources such as people? Could we have one entity to represent both
>> kinds? If yes, then we may need the schema to allow to have offices
>> independent of organizations (Office may not be a good name for it). If they
>> can't be the same entity, please share some use cases of how it works in
>> reality.
>
> I'm not sure how you would have an office without an organisation? A local
> office would just be a branch of the main organisation (sub-office, field
> office, regional office, the terminology will differ depending on
> organisation. I'm not sure what sort of situation you're thinking of here,
> can you clarify?
>
>> 2- Can OrgPerson represent the volunteers that join an activity on fly?
>> There might be some volunteers that are available but not particularly
>> assigned to any activity. Do we need different entities to represent them?
>> If not, then the model should allow a contact person to be part of the staff
>> or on its own. (OrgPerson is not a good name either since in that case it
>> doesn't have to be attached to an organization but potentially the model
>> should allow it).
>
> I am not sure that the extant W3 model addresses the question of staffing.
> OrgPerson is usually the contact person for the organisation (or more
> accurately office), which is useful for the purposes of co-ordination. It is
> not so useful to have complete staffing profiles of the entire range of
> organisations in the domain covered by the W3 - it's not manageable, nobody
> has the authority to direct them, and it could also create additional
> security risks, particularly for national staff. Most NGOs would be
> unwilling to share their staff details outside the organisation, I think.
>
>> 3- The office, Contact and Activity have their own assigned locations.
>> This allows to model activities that occur in a different location than the
>> office executing it.  At the same time the model captures location
>> information about the office as well. It also allows to have information
>> about the location of contact people when they are not assigned to any
>> activity.
>
> I assume that a Contact will normally be located against an office location.
>
> The weakness of the W3 is the level of granularity. Let's say you have an
> organisation doing WASH, Health, Education and Shelter activities. Each of
> those is likely to have a project manager, but the organisation may only
> give the contact details for its overall programme director. Because it's a
> voluntary submission, any data structures we develop will have to be
> maximally flexible to accomodate the different levels of detail that
> different organisations might give.
>
> cheers
> Paul C
>
>



-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************

Received on Saturday, 9 August 2008 11:35:15 UTC