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

I understand that Paola and I am not trying to constrain the goals of the
group, but help ground every decision in reality by having many incremental
cycle of the model validate itself with the actual systems it is going to be
applied in (currently only OCHA 3W and Sahana). If we come up with a very
abstract model and vocabulary that makes it hard to implement in Sahana or
OCHA 3W I think we have defeated the purpose of helping to improve the
ground realities of efficient information exchange in the times of a
disaster. There can be many iterations and multiple versions of this model,
but at least lets have a quick win by making sure the first iteration is of
value in enabling two systems to work together. This does not mean you stop
thinking in a generic way when coming up with the model.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:21 PM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chamindra
>
> the point that is that while it is fully legitimate for you as Sahana
> developer to create a system in whatever way you chose to model, it
> would be unfair that your personal choices as a developer constrain
> the (potential) global scope of this workgroup, which in its small way
> is rather ambitious:make a contribution to how EM information web
> based exchanged can be made more meaningful, representative, and
> efficient. We can only achieve that if we are  innovative, critical
> and proactive in our modelling approach.
>
> If we as a workgroup produce an integrated model, you will be able to
> use it and apply according to your preference, including just adopting
> a subset (part 1), without narrowing its overall capability.
>
> PDM
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Chamindra de Silva
> <chamindra@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > In Sahana we have these two as separate modules.
> >
> > 1) "Who is doing What Where" is the traditional 3W application called the
> > Organization Registry.
> >
> > 2) "Who _needs_ What Where" is a bulletin board of people requesting aid
> on
> > behalf of a victim group in the field called the (Aid) Request Management
> > System. It also track pledges of aid.
> >
> > The prior operates at a high level of services provided (e.g. medical,
> > sanitation, food, water) by a responder group across the affected area,
> > whilst the later works with units of aid needed specifically by a victim
> > group (e.g. 100 Tents)
> >
> > I would prefer we stick to the traditional sense of the 3W  (i.e. option
> 1)
> > to keep things simple for now and to help us can quickly get through the
> > full cycle up to an interop standard recommendation. We can always
> improve
> > that standard and build it up incrementally from there, though I
> completely
> > understand that everything is very closely related.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Nigel Snoad <nigelsno@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Paola,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In the F2F in Washington DC we scoped the 3W/4W as described by Gavin. I
> >> completely agree that there must be a "needs" layer that is centered
> around
> >> the affected population (I detest the phrasing "victim" and can't too
> >> strongly suggest we never use it except for law enforcement/human rights
> >> contexts) as well as the current "response" layer. Thankfully, finally,
> the
> >> humanitarian clusters are starting to talk about this in their data
> models,
> >> and definitely affected populations must included in the incubator's
> data
> >> model from the start.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So – we have a semantic confusion about how we should scope "who". One
> is
> >> organizational, and one is affected populations. In the 3W context for
> >> historical reasons it's the organization/group providing
> assistance/services
> >> (of course this usually includes the affected population themselves,
> >> something usually ignored in the UN context). Usefully - from a data
> >> perspective responding organizations "need" assistance as well – goods,
> >> staff and services – to continue their work, and they, like affected
> >> populations, provide capabilities. I like the thought of a symmetric
> >> integrated model along these lines.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So - I's no news to all of us that the scope of a solution/application
> >> affects which components of a data model are used. The 3W/4W focuses on
> >> "response".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My suggestion is that when discussing the 3W/4W use case we confine the
> >> "who" to organization providing services, but in the data models that
> come
> >> out  we ensure that the who are subclassed/flagged into both a "needs"
> >> component including affected groups and organizations
> requiring/recieving
> >> support/supplies/services, and a "response" component that includes
> >> capabilities and activities/outcomes/assistance/services provided.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nigel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org]
> >> On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@gmail.com
> >> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 8:38 AM
> >> To: Gavin Treadgold
> >> Cc: public-xg-eiif
> >> Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard (new proposed schema
> >> attached)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gavin
> >>
> >>
> >> My understanding is the 3W is 'just' a directory application, hence the
> >> schema is designed around providing directory services.
> >>
> >> May I ask what is that assumption based on?
> >> Did we as a group discuss/agree on such a constraint?
> >>  Is there any more useful purpose for which we need a 3W metaset?
> >> Is the schema for a service directory part of our mission ?
> >>
> >>
> >> assuming 'directory' is accetaptable description for everybody, it
> should
> >> be designed
> >> to be flexible to accommodate for all stakeholder  requirements, so we
> >> definetely gotta talk
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paola Di Maio
> >> School of IT
> >> www.mfu.ac.th
> >> *********************************************
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT
> www.mfu.ac.th
> *********************************************
>