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

Re: FW: EM Standards List

From: <jlatikka@cc.hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:49:49 +0200
Message-ID: <20080225094949.fxgawc0cg4scw4ww@webmail3.tkk.fi>
To: public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>

Hi everybody,

still one late introduction:
I am a student, doing my Diploma thesis (plus some other things) based  
on a multinational crisis management project, called MNE5  
(Multinational Experiment 5) and especially its Finnish focus area,  
SHIFT. In order to increase the interoperability of the available  
information and the communication concerning the planning and  
operations stage, there is a need for both metadata and ontology  
development work.

For more information, check (brief) web pages: www.shift.fi

Cheers,
Jaakko Latikka
Helsinki University of Technology

Lainaus paola.dimaio@gmail.com:

> 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 FOSS
> 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
> *********************************************
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 04:12:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 October 2008 02:05:09 GMT