Re: Teleconference Today

Hi all,

On 2008-07-18, at 0158, paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:

> 1. I agreee with Gary's suggestion that we need more high level  
> abstraction modelling. One example is that 'missing people' is not  
> an entity , 'person' is an entity, and 'missing' is a state. Unless  
> we identify our top level entities correctly, we are wasting energy

+1 we need the most simple neutral entities to deal with. I still  
think the CIQ standards provide a good existing basis for this.

> Just for simplifcation, the model  used in the past is
>
> em provider
> em beneficiary
> other


Even these are not clear cut - a person may be a beneficiary of  
building services (because they lost their home) but may also be  
acting as a provider of other services (helping others rebuild their  
home as well). So any model has to support multiple provider and  
beneficiary states, and also reflect and capture that these may change  
over time e.g. services provided/received during response are  
different to those for longer term recovery.

Most people that live in the affected areas over the years following  
an event are likely to be both providers and beneficiaries, so I don't  
think we can categorise people/orgs as simply provider/beneficiary.  
Even organisations that come in from outside the affected region will  
still need to be a beneficiary of local services unless they are  
entirely self-sufficient in their operation - e.g. supporting  
infrastructure.

So, I would suggest that provider and beneficiary are also states, and  
that a person/org can exist in multiple of these states concurrently.

Cheers Gav

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:00:16 UTC