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

paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, have you noticed how we have shifted from 3w being a standard to being a tool?
>   
W3 was a tool which was developed in the field; OCHA have built a schema 
on the basis of that experience; the schema can usefully be abstracted 
into a standard. This will enable other entities involved in 
co-ordinating organisational responses to adapt and adopt the standard 
to ensure interoperability (as well as a more effective response).

> The OCHA schema already exists - Paolo sent one with a document describing the rationale behind it a whie back - so what we have to agree is whether such a 3w schema is usable generally. From what I have seen, it reflects OCHA internal organisational model, therefore, it needs to be abstracted further.
>   
I don't believe that it does not reflect OCHA's internal organisational 
model. It reflects the model of humanitarian co-ordination in the field. 
OCHA is the organisation usually mandated and tasked to deal with this, 
which may be the source of your misunderstanding. However other 
organisations also have responsibility for co-ordination, notably 
national governments and cluster lead agencies; such a standard would be 
useful for them.

As per Gavin's comment, the W3 (whether the tool or the standard we 
might be able to develop) addresses one specific aspect of humanitarian 
response. We should not imagine that it addresses the full range of 
requirements of beneficiaries and responders. However since we have OCHA 
involved in these discussions, we are more likely to be able to have a 
constructive impact.

cheers

Paul C

Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 10:43:00 UTC