Re: Framework Report (28 Apr 09)

Chamindra -

The OGC has developed, in concert with the EM community, numerous emergency 
management use cases and scenarios. These scenarios are often used as the 
basis for interoperability demonstrations of OGC and related standards (such 
as CAP). Information and the various scenarios and related demonstrations 
can be found on the OGC web site. Over the years, we have developed the 
following use cases/scenarios:

1. Cross border (US-Canada) response and alerting for release of chlorine 
gas from a mobile truck. Done with City of Detroit, Windsor, and multiple 
state and provincial agencies.
2. Wildfire tracking, response, and alerting scenario. Done with various 
state, Federal, and local agencies. Used California wildfires as the basis.
3. Dirty bomb in a container at port scenario. Alert, response, logistics, 
health response, field hospital. Done with NYC, various port authorities, 
and the GUARD program.

I can get detailed scenarios for these and others if you are interested.

As to alerting systems, the OGC membership, especially in Europe, are doing 
major monitoring and alerting application deployments (tsunami, landslide, 
water, debris flow, etc). Much of this work is tied to the European programs 
GMES, SANY, ORCHESTRA and ultimately to INSPIRE.

Regards

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chamindra de Silva" <chamindra@opensource.lk>
To: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Cc: "Renato Iannella" <renato@nicta.com.au>; "public-xg-eiif" 
<public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: Framework Report (28 Apr 09)


> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:58 PM,  <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do these definitions cover the gap between
>>> - systems
>>> and
>>> - interop standards
>>> - to match a needed use-case?
>>
>>
>> i am not sure if they do :-) lets work it out
>> we may have to develop the paragraphs accordingly and fill any bits that 
>> are
>> not yet covered in the section
>
> I think it is important to cover these, at least in the context of the
> W3C charter, which generally is focused on driving interop standards.
>>>
>>> If by systems you mean systems in use, then I would say that falls under
>>> the pragmatic bracket
>
> We need that pragmatic bracket! :-)
>>
>> in the note, we define three dimensions (at least, in fact 4) for
>> addressing an interoperability gap (the (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic 
>> and
>> conceptual)
>>
>> then we project these dimensions across different fields of interop,
>> communication, medical, etc etc
>>
>> so I would say that matrix should help us define the 'interoperability 
>> gap'
>> which is a broad description of possibly everything that does not
>> interoperate, down to a few specific factors.
>> I would say that any use case can be broken down
>>
>> give me one or two example of interop gap that you are referring to, and 
>> I
>> ll try to map the case with the proposed method of analysis, in fact we 
>> can
>> map all of them if you want
>
> Let me put a disclaimer first on not being an expert on ontology mapping.
>
> OK take CAP for example. If we were looking at an alerting use-case
> the first would be to define the ontology for emergency alerting. Next
> would be to identify existing standards (or interop formats) that can
> cover that scope, like CAP + other interop standards in alerting.
>
> 1) The first gap would be that between our ontology and the standards.
>
> 2) Next you would document alerting systems that support the format
> (e.g. Sahana does) and the gap would be to those alerting systems that
> do not support any alerting interop standard. A more subtle gap would
> be the actual tested level of support of that standard.
>
> Chamindra
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 14:56:40 UTC