- From: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:11:26 -0600
- To: "Gavin Treadgold" <gt@kestrel.co.nz>, "public-xg-eiif" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
And a very interesting statement from the hCard/geo brainstorming page: http://microformats.org/wiki/geo-brainstorming ISO 19136 When it comes to anything geospatial, any unadorned / simple encoding must remain upwardly-compatible with the more sophisticated GML schema (Geography Markup Language ) which is also known as ISO 19136. This is so that all the fundamental nuances underpinning geocoding ( different datums, different projections, elevation, etc etc ) can ultimately ( or sooner ? ) be completely accounted for. Cheers Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gavin Treadgold" <gt@kestrel.co.nz> To: "public-xg-eiif" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard (new proposed schema attached) > > Hi all, > > I'm very keen to microformats adopted within Sahana and other > applications as well. It is a small, simple step that can be taken to > make data machine readable using existing schemas. hCard (a web form of > vCard) is a good example, and I'd like to see an hCard embedded on every > page in Sahana for example that displays a persons contact details. > Likewise, any page that displays, say, location information for a welfare > centre, as well as embedded the contact details for the centre as an > hCard, should also include the geo tags for its location. > > http://microformats.org/ > > I'd also support Carl on adoption of the Customer Information Quality > standard rather than reinventing the wheel. In New Zealand we are seeing > CIQ increasingly being promoted as a means of consistently recording > information about governments transactions with its citizens. This of > course makes it a natural bedfellow for emergency management. > > I'm always keen to support the adoption of business-as-usual standards in > preference to those specifically designed for specifically for > emergencies. The reason? Well it is the network effort - business-as- > usual standards will be far more widely deployed than emergency- specific > standards. This means that if we adopt these in preference, we will be > interoperable with a far wider range of systems. > > Cheers Gav > > On 2008-08-13, at 1031, Carl Reed wrote: > >> 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 >> ********************************************* >> >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 23:12:07 UTC