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

Chamindra

Do you use the vCard (IETF RFCs 2425 and 2426) definitions in any of your work? Just a question - but in terms of broader applicability of any emergency interop standards, I would strongly encourage this group to leverage the existing standards for address, name, organization, etc from the IETF and OASIS. There is also considerable work being done in this area by NENA for the Next Generation 9-1-1 activity in the US. They are looking to mandate vCard and CIQ for certain elements of the new information architecture for NG 9-1-1.

Regards

Carl Reed
CTO
OGC
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chamindra de Silva 
  To: Nigel Snoad 
  Cc: paola.dimaio@gmail.com ; Gavin Treadgold ; public-xg-eiif 
  Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:46 PM
  Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard (new proposed schema attached)


  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
    *********************************************