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

Hi Nigel


> In the F2F in Washington DC we scoped the 3W/4W as described by Gavin

Yes, I was there, remember?
 But from the latest exchanges it looks like we did not discuss/agree
on how this was going to be done in detail. We can get there following
different pathways,

.
> 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.
>
yes
>
> 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.
>
yes, I remember agreeing on that point
>
> 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".
>
From the latest exchanges, I get the impression that 'response' is
portraied as a static entity, rather than as a dynamic interactive
process
In dynamic processes, all the agents participating in the interaction
are necessary to the  model, which otherwise would be crippled. So, I
feel I want to emphasise that
'response ' is a process, not an entity. Process modelling is based on
different assumptions than data modelling. (a bit more complex)


> 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.
>
I would be happy if we as a group could agree on something along those lines.
However, in what you suggest above there is the risk that unlesss the
'data type' and 'data fomat' between the use case representation and
the data model representation is uniform ie compatible, the model will
be brittle and will break.
Besides, is it going to be part of our deliverable to issue
specifications for data models (because somehow I dont think that
would happen) or are we leaving it to individual agents to create data
models that compensate for the shortcomings in the schema?

So we need to make sure that whatever way this is done, it must be
consistent and robust.  A proposed schema should be complete, or it
would result in incorrect representation of the response cycle

Of course whatever we come up with should be usable by any agent whose
operational model only covers part of the response process,

Web based processes are liquid and can we wrapped around any number of
agents, provided there are no flaws in the modelling and
representation  that would automatically results in systems
limitations that will be very risky and costly to fix a posteriori.

My understanding is that we have to come up with a suggested schema,
that should support the 3W view, but should not be restricted to the
'institutional' use of 3W

No point in injecting a priori limitations and making assumptions in
what context can a 3W schema be used by autonomous web based agents

PDM





> 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
*********************************************

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 07:12:54 UTC