Re: Draft XG Charter

I tend to agree with Paul that we need to ensure that these varying 
degrees of "crisis response" needs to be covered, especially as it means 
that a different composition of agencies are involved in the relief 
effort based on the level of crisis. I prefer to refer to the 
distinction Paul mentioned as emergency management (fire, police, 
ambulance, other gov services) vs disaster management (EM + NGOs, Civil 
society, foreign gov support).

I have understood there are difference in terminology between these 
various agencies and in will sometimes be hard to get them to agree on 
one set of terms, sometimes due to politically correct reasons.

As soon as our XG is approved (which should be very soon) I would like 
to explore the possibility of defining thesaurus to map parallel 
ontologies amongst these different agencies.

BTW I think it will be easier to agree on interop standards as we should 
have no issues picking one ontology (and we will have to) as we are 
working at a machine to machine level and thus do not have to worry 
about being sensitive of terminology.

Chamindra de Silva
http://chamindra.googlepages.com


Paul Currion wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply.  This draft looks good to me, although I 
> wonder if there is one point in the Deliverables that needs 
> clarification.  In the last couple of years I have become aware that 
> there is something of a distinction between what might be termed the 
> domestic emergency management agencies and the international response 
> agencies.  Obviously there is a lot of overlap and interplay between 
> their activities at the national level, but it might be worth 
> identifying this distinction within the XG Charter and expanding upon it 
> in the reports.  This will avoid any misunderstandings if there is a 
> particular focus one way or the other, and help with this group's 
> approach to both of those other groups of organisations?
> 
> 
> 
> Renato Iannella wrote:
>>
>> Hi all - any last comments on the draft XG Charter?
>>
>> PDF version here 
>> <http://esw.w3.org/topic/DisasterManagement?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=eiif-charter-02.pdf>
>>
>> HTML version attached.
>>
>> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>> NICTA
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     * Scope <#scope>
>>     * Deliverables <#deliverables>
>>     * Dependencies <#coordination>
>>     * Participation <#participation>
>>     * Communication <#communication>
>>     * Decision Policy <#decisions>
>>     * Patent Policy <#patentpolicy>
>>     * Additional Information <#additional>
>>     * About this Charter <#about>
>>
>> W3C <http://www.w3.org/> Incubator Activity </2005/Incubator/>
>>
>>
>>   Emergency Information Interoperability Framework Incubator Group Charter
>>
>>
>>     DRAFT - Do Not Disseminate outside this group - DRAFT
>>
>>
>>     This is a PROPOSAL ONLY - No ENDORSEMENTS implied
>>
>>
>>     Mission
>>
>> The *mission* of the Emergency Information Interoperability Framework 
>> Incubator Group <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/>, part of the 
>> Incubator Activity <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/>, is to review 
>> the current state-of-the-art in vocabularies used in the emergency 
>> management sector and to investigate the path forward via an emergency 
>> management systems information interoperability framework. These 
>> activities will lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive approach 
>> to ontology management and semantic information interoperability 
>> leading to a proposal for future longer-term W3C Working Group activity.
>>
>> Note: The term *Emergency Management* is used holistically and in its 
>> broadest sense.
>>
>> Join the Emergency Information Interoperability Framework Incubator Group.
>>
>> End date 	X August 2008
>> Confidentiality 	Proceedings are public 
>> </2005/10/Process-20051014/comm.html#confidentiality-levels>
>> Initial Chairs 	Renato Iannella, NICTA
>> Initiating Members 	
>>
>>     * National ICT Australia (NICTA) <http://nicta.com.au/>
>>     * Google <http://google.com/>
>>     * IBM (TBC) <http://ibm.com/>
>>
>> Usual Meeting Schedule 	Teleconferences: Monthly
>> Face-to-face: Once/Twice Annually
>>
>>
>>     Scope
>>
>> The Emergency Management sector encompasses a broad spectrum of the 
>> global community and covers both short term actions, such as the 
>> response to an natural hazard, medium-term actions, such as the 
>> recovery from such hazards, and long-term actions, such as mitigation 
>> activities and community resilience capacity building. In effect, 
>> *everyone* is involved in the Emergency Management sector, which makes 
>> collaboration and sharing information vital.
>>
>> Information systems can have a tremendous value to help manage the 
>> scale of the Emergency Management sector operations, from day-to-day 
>> mitigation and resilience activities to immediate actions when a 
>> disaster strikes. Each stakeholder group needs to understand the 
>> vocabulary of others, and exchange information in common formats, to 
>> support data integration for critical decision making.
>>
>> The types of functions and roles supported by the Emergency Management 
>> sector include:
>>
>>     * Early warning services to the public
>>     * Resilience networks of local services and groups performing
>>       crisis functions
>>     * Situational awareness of emergency risks and crisis planning
>>     * Rapid damage assessment of areas and critical infrastructure
>>     * Missing and displaced people management
>>     * Coordination of relief organizations roles and responsibilities
>>     * Managing relief logistics
>>
>> In essence, this XG aims to encourage the Emergency Management sector 
>> to move towards the adoption of compatible information systems before 
>> any disaster and therefore to develop the capacity and capability of 
>> strategic long-term local Emergency Management and short-term relief 
>> operations.
>>
>>
>>       Success Criteria
>>
>> The XG will prove successful if, in addition to the Deliverables, it will:
>>
>>     * encourage collaboration between experts, local authorities,
>>       relief specialists and non-governmental agencies,
>>     * promote the development of common standards and protocols for
>>       coordinating information gathered in anticipation of potential
>>       risks, and
>>     * highlight best practices in simplifying the exchange of
>>       information across the sector.
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>     Deliverables
>>
>> This XG will develop three specific outcomes.
>>
>>     * XG Report on the current state-of-the-art of vocabularies and
>>       terminologies used in the Emergency Management sector. This will
>>       present a categorised snap-shot of the sector's ontology usage
>>       and development plans.
>>     * XG Report on an interoperability information framework for the
>>       Emergency Management sector. This will provide a reference model
>>       for information interoperability across the sector.
>>     * Final XG Report with recommendations for future activities.
>>
>>
>>     Dependencies
>>
>> While the XG will not have any direct dependencies, there are a number 
>> of related efforts with which it intends to maintain close 
>> communications.  The XG intends to collect and categorize numerous 
>> Emergency Management related vocabularies and in the process will gain 
>> a comprehensive picture of the key stakeholders in this sector. This 
>> will include existing standards groups (eg OASIS, UN), national 
>> emergency management groups, and international resilience and relief 
>> organisations.  The XG will solicit and welcome input from these and 
>> other efforts of which we become aware during the duration of the XG.
>>
>>
>>     Participation
>>
>> It is envisioned that the XG will teleconference every month at a time 
>> that provides an adequate compromise over the various time zones of 
>> the interested participants. Extensive discussion will also be carried 
>> out on the XG mailing list.  Additionally, it may be useful to have 
>> one or two face-to-face meetings at a venue for which a significant 
>> number of XG participants are likely to attend.  
>>
>> Expected participation follows the W3C Process Document discussion of 
>> Good Standing 
>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#good-standing>.
>>
>>
>>     Communication
>>
>> This group primarily conducts its work on the public mailing list 
>> public-xg-eiif@w3.org (archive 
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-eiif/>) .. The group's 
>> Member-only list is member-xg-eiif@w3.org (archive 
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xg-eiif/>)
>>
>> Information about the group (deliverables, participants, face-to-face 
>> meetings, teleconferences, etc.) is available from the Emergency 
>> Information Interoperability Framework Incubator Group home page 
>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/>.
>>
>>
>>     Decision Policy
>>
>> As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3 
>> </Consortium/Process/policies#Consensus>), this group will seek to 
>> make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair puts a question 
>> and observes dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, 
>> the Chair should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and 
>> any objections, and move on.
>>
>>     * When deciding a substantive technical issue, the Chair may put a
>>       question before the group. The Chair must only do so during a
>>       group meeting
>>       </Consortium/Process/policies.html#GeneralMeetings>, and at
>>       least two-thirds of participants in Good Standing
>>       </Consortium/Process/groups.html#good-standing> must be in
>>       attendance. When the Chair conducts a formal vote
>>       </Consortium/Process/policies#Votes> to reach a decision on a
>>       substantive technical issue, eligible voters may vote on a
>>       proposal one of three ways: for a proposal, against a proposal,
>>       or abstain. For the proposal to pass there must be more votes
>>       for the proposal than against. In case of a tie, the Chair will
>>       decide the outcome of the proposal.
>>     * This charter is written in accordance with Section 3.4, Votes
>>       </Consortium/Process/policies#Votes> of the W3C Process Document
>>       and includes no voting procedures beyond what the Process
>>       Document requires.
>>
>>
>>     Patent Policy
>>
>> This Incubator Group provides an opportunity to share perspectives on 
>> the topic addressed by this charter. W3C reminds Incubator Group 
>> participants of their obligation to comply with patent disclosure 
>> obligations as set out in Section 6 
>> </Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Disclosure> of the W3C Patent Policy. 
>> While the Incubator Group does not produce Recommendation-track 
>> documents, when Incubator Group participants review 
>> Recommendation-track specifications from Working Groups, the patent 
>> disclosure obligations do apply.
>>
>> Incubator Groups have as a goal to produce work that can be 
>> implemented on a Royalty Free basis, as defined in the W3C Patent 
>> Policy </Consortium/Patent-Policy/>.
>>
>> All Participants in this XG must make a statement that they *Agree* or 
>> *Do not agree* to the following two commitments:
>>
>>     * The Participant I represent agrees to offer licenses according
>>       to the W3C Royalty-Free licensing requirements described in
>>       section 5 of the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy
>>       </Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements> for any
>>       portions of the XG Reports produced by this XG that are
>>       subsequently incorporated into a W3C Recommendation.
>>     * If the Participant joins a W3C Working Group that incorporates
>>       into a W3C Recommendation-track document any portions of the XG
>>       Reports produced by this XG, the Participant I represent agrees
>>       to waive the right in that Working Group to exclude Essential
>>       Claims with respect to those portions of the XG Reports.
>>
>> *Note:* A Participant in this type of XG may change a "Do not agree" 
>> statement to a "Agree" statement at any time (even after the close of 
>> the XG). A Participant must not change an "Agree" statement to a "Do 
>> not agree" statement.
>>
>> For more information about disclosure obligations for this group, 
>> please see the W3C Patent Policy Implementation </2004/01/pp-impl/>.
>>
>>
>>     About this Charter
>>
>> This charter for the Emergency Information Interoperability Framework 
>> Incubator Group has been created according to the Incubator Group 
>> Procedures documentation </2005/Incubator/procedures>. In the event of 
>> a conflict between this document or the provisions of any charter and 
>> the W3C Process, the W3C Process shall take precedence.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Renato Iannella
>>
>> Copyright </Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright>© 2007 W3C </> ^® 
>> (MIT <http://www.csail.mit.edu/> , ERCIM <http://www.ercim.org/> , 
>> Keio <http://www.keio.ac.jp/>), All Rights Reserved.
>>
>> $Date: 2007/06/27 $
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> Paul Currion
> 
> UK / CELL: + 44 79 46 82 45 46
> UK / LAND: + 44 20 71 93 71 67
> MSN / SKYPE / YAHOO / IRC: paulcurrion
> Web / www.humanitarian.info / www.currion.net
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 16:32:50 UTC