W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-eiif@w3.org > February 2008

Re: FW: EM Standards List

From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:26:38 +0700
Message-ID: <c09b00eb0802240426n405543f3r44a1eb3caf22c3b1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Don Cameron" <donc@internode.on.net>
Cc: humanitarian-ict@yahoogroups.com, public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Hi Don
thanks for clarification

> Just for clarification, I was not suggesting we accept interpretive
> definitions of an 'EM standard' by members of this group, many of whom I
> believe are IT professionals working in support of this initiative. I'm
> not
> sure how many EM domain professionals and practitioners we have. I am
> certainly keen to promote the need to include standards recognised as such
> by the domain itself as necessary for incorporation into an emergency
> management ontology.

The purpose of an heterogeneous work group is to  open up the discussion for
input from different members of the community. That's what it says in the
I am aware that some people have more experience than others, and I am also
aware that there are public concerns about EM sector is organized (top
down). I also agree that the term standard has its limitations and some
negative connotations, I also agree that's the standard term adopted for
'unit of measure' or 'shared convention'
So  part of our challenge is to reconcile such differences where possible,
through open and informed discussions. You will always be entitled to
reference the standards that you are happy with, as they are not going to be
'Interoperability' is never achieved just by following the 'one way

> Eg: ISO 7731 describes the requirements for auditory danger signals in a
> structural emergency. ISO 8201 describes the internationally agreed signal
> that unequivocally means "evacuate immediately". Elements of these
> standards
> are not open to interpretation; they are globally accepted to the extent
> they impact on international trade (manufacturers of emergency alert
> systems
> cannot export or have imported any devices that fails to meet the ISO
> standard).
> These, many other ISO's and adopted standards (systems and languages
> accepted by EM orgs globally and incorporated into local standards in the
> manner the language of ICS became componentry of NIIMS and AIIMS) actually
> form the base of emergency management doctrine.

Don, I think ISO standards are great. I also know their weaknesses, and
where they fail. Being ISO certified does not mean much other than in
principle, and on paper (looks good)
ISO standards are references, and by all means put them in there for us to
learn about them
But you must allow 'the public' to comment on them and feel free to say
where standards meet, and where they do not meet, their requirements
I am not sure whether ISO standards have a public consultation period, for
(if not, they may have to consider that)

> My concern is that as a group we may lack the resources to properly
> identify
> and where necessary seek and gain approval to use all these standards.

We from the IT background are used to work around constraints :-)
I am not saying that your concern is not legitimate, but I  am also sure
that we can  seek
further resources as and when needed. But I dont think we can achieve much
if we bring in the top leading expert in th world to tell us what to do,
dont you think

> Further, that personal preference and affiliation may impact on the
> weighting given to certain standards. This is a great initiative with
> enormous potential, however an initiative that also has potential to
> inhibit
> emergency relief efforts if by omission it poses as authoritative yet
> fails
> to incorporate vital elements. There is significant responsibility
> associated with this endeavour (fortunately no different to most other EM
> undertakings where the identification and management of risk is
> fundamental).

Yes, this is why your input, as well as anyone else's is welcome, I think
everybody input is welcome and must be open to criticism by others who dont
think so (provided the exchanges remain constructive and to the point, I
guess, othewise differences are probably best dealt with 'outside')

> For my part I will try and collate as many recognised standards as I can
> and
> post them here for inclusion into whatever directory is deemed most
> appropriate. I also agree with other posters that the real challenge
> commences once we attempt to correlate and map elements of all the various
> standards.

yes, that would be great!  take it as an online field exercise Don...nothing
a minefield this is...and we know it... lets thread carefully



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2008 8:31 PM
> To: humanitarian-ict@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: public-xg-eiif
> Subject: Re: FW: EM Standards List
> hi Don and all
> apologies for late intro to this incubator list, been swamped on other
> fronts
> I am an information systems analyst, designer and consultant, with an
> interest in open source and online collaboration. I have been studying
> in relation to EM since 2005, and have been keen to see progress in this
> area since I realized the lack of compatible data formats is the biggest
> stumbling block to information integration/aggregation during emergencies,
> and the lack of information architecture is partly responsible for the
> weaknesses and lack of adoption of some FOSS software (bla bla bla) two
> links referenced below
>  I very much look forward to be working on a public recommendation for
> future adoption
>        My question to this group - how do we incorporate all the
> practiced,
>        recognised, accredited proprietary EM standards into this
> initiative? -
>        Should we be approaching FEMA, EMA, JICA, CFA, MCDEM, IAAI etc. for
>        permission to interrogate and use their EM standards, languages and
> systems?
>        If so who will undertake this task?
> Don I think we already discussed this (somewhere, sometime)  each  member
> of
> the workgroup will elicit the information based on their proximity (either
> geographical, or disciplinary) to the information source This means what
> each of us can gather whatever standards they consider a standard to them
> or
> whatever other convention they suggest is considered for
> comparison/evaluation We can periodically review the inputs and decide
> what
> to do next accordingly...
> whatdyathink
> Best, Paola Di Maio
> early contributions on this topic on the list below
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanitarian-ict/
>  some thoughts from last year
> opensource.mit.edu/papers/TOWARDS_AN_OPEN_ONTOLOGY_FOR_ER.pdf -
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT
> www.mfu.ac.th
> *********************************************

Paola Di Maio
School of IT
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2008 12:26:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:00 UTC