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

I agree that we need to leverage existing standards and I am a supporter of
using  vCard for Sahana (especially as you can easily exchange data with
mobile phones). Once a recommendation is made here for 3W (inc probably
vCard) we will put this as a specification to the Sahana project community.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org> 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 <chamindra@opensource.lk>
> *To:* Nigel Snoad <nigelsno@microsoft.com>
> *Cc:* paola.dimaio@gmail.com ; Gavin Treadgold <gt@kestrel.co.nz> ;
> public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
> *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
>> *********************************************
>>
>
>