W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-eiif@w3.org > February 2009

On the framework

From: Mandana <mandanas@ece.ubc.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:28:34 -0800
To: "'public-xg-eiif'" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008f01c990b8$32c8ea60$985abf20$@ubc.ca>
Hello all, 


Thank you for all your comments earlier on the draft. 


Renato, are we going to freeze the draft after the next release or can we have some modifications on it? I ma..y be able to do some modifications by the next teleconference. 


The discussions on this thread have been on the particularity of the models. I was thinking maybe we could bounce some ideas about other possibilities for the framework itself. Some months before, Olle kindly proposed the content and structure for the final draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/wiki/EIIF_Final_Report


Since we are about to work on the proposal, this is a followon this issue but with a focus more on the technical side and future work…


One thing that we have encountered a number of times and have not resolved yet is the deliverables: are we aiming for a domain ontology? Or considering the diversity of approaches and users, are we thinking of a framework that takes into account this diversity?  Or something else?


Here is one suggestion. The goal here is to capture the spectrum of the approaches (from weak to strong semantic) and to structure what has been gathered on wiki, through our discussions, or in other documents towards more specific goals. 


-          Interoperability framework for information systems in disaster management  

o   On the scope

§  Our scope in the domain of disaster management

§  Kinds of information systems we are dealing with  

§  The level of interoperability  

·         Syntax, semantic, etc. 

o   On conceptual modeling of the domain

§  Ontological approach, system approach, ad-hoc approach, etc. 

§  Phase framework is one approach 

§  Starting with one or two categories of information systems  -> collecting their common modules/functions -> collecting the common problems, in modeling issues particularly (some have been brought up already but we need a method to capture them more systematically) -> maybe defining some common use cases and through them providing recommendations for the identified issues (basically expanding what we have done in the draft in a more systematic way)

o   On upper ontologies 

§  Pros and cons

§  What are the best practices? 

§  What are the impediments? 

§  What are the ways to facilitate their adoption?  

o   On the standards 

§  A set of standards relevant to the domain 

§  Pros and cons

§  Grouping them based on their applications: 

·         Some define data elements

·         Some are for transporting and routing messages

·         Etc. 

o   On enabling technologies

§  Tools, etc. 


Basically whatever it takes to provide a smoother path towards information interoperability considering a wider range of applications and users.  





From: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:08 PM
To: Gavin Treadgold; epi@nod.org
Cc: public-xg-eiif
Subject: Re: EIIF draft needs unified person


Thanks, Craig and Gav

I l can drop Hilary a line, unless someone else wants to do it


On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:32 AM, Gavin Treadgold <gt@kestrel.co.nz> wrote:

I agree, we still seem to lack enough disaster/EM practitioners in this group - we are too IT heavy.


I would suggest first contacting Hilary Styron, Director Emergency Preparedness Initiative, from the US National Organisation on Disability.


<http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature <http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&FeatureID=1479> &FeatureID=1479>


She would be a good contact to start with, and is very proactive in management of disabilities/special needs before, during and after an emergency.


A contact email address is epi@nod.org


Cheers Gavin




On 2008-12-04, at 1658, paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:

I think we may have to consult the disability experts here

if the person is  deaf or blind, and missing, the implication of the search and rescue
may be different,  as the person may not respond to usual inputs, and people around them may have to be alerted to their conditions. 

I personally see needs of the person which exist before the incident (guide dog, medication, facilites) with the needs that arise after the incident, as different

but I am not an expert, anyone we can consult with?



Paola Di Maio 
School of IT
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 04:29:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:02 UTC