Re: Draft XG Charter

Great discussion on this topic everyone. The next challenge is to ensure 
we capture or reference these discussions in alignment to our outcomes 
such that we do not lose them in these discussion threads.

My preferance is for using the WIKI at http://esw.w3.org to capture 
summaries of discussions here. However we need some structure for the 
WIKI to make this effective (effectively an ontology for our work). Here 
is my tentative suggestion (please comment/refine)

DisasterManagement
  General introduction to subject area and background information
  - Background and scope
  - Related projects
  - Background reading (references and research)

DisasterManagementOntology
  Main working area for ontology discussions
  - Glossary of terms/entities
  - Domains and scopes
  - Thesaurus

DisasterManagementInterop
  Main working area for discussions on interop standards
  - Interop problems and scopes
  - Interop-standards (Existing)
  - Interop-standards (Needed)

DisasterManagementOntologyXG
  Details and update on XG activities
  - Charter
  - Progress on outcomes
  - Key sponsors, participants and partner groups
  - Meeting minutes
  - Decisions and Voting outcomes
  - Events

I am sure the ontology experts can refine this further. Let me know when 
you are ready I will take the initial stab of creating the skeletons.

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


Olle Olsson wrote:
> 
> Chamindra,
> 
> I agree with what you say. Both about being apolitical, and about 
> ultimately being able to support user needs.
> 
> But support can be provided at various levels. On one extreme end of the 
> spectrum, the "shrink-wrapped" level, a standard can support *all* user 
> (and organisation) needs directly -- but this is where the problem of 
> multiple incompatible terminologies get exposed. At a lower level, one 
> could aim for a common/shared *enabling*  conceptual framework, 
> capturing as much as possible of the core concepts that are critical for 
> the collaborative aspect of emergency/disaster management -- on top of 
> which organisations can then then put their bridges, adapters, etc. that 
> makes their systems interoperate with other's systems.
> 
> Most likely we all agree on something like that. Shared 
> conceptualisations typically do not cover everything that an 
> organisation regards as critical *to* *them*. So the value of this 
> discussion is that we have brought an important issue on the table -- 
> where do we in reality draw the boundary line that separates what the XG 
> will work on, and what the XG states is beyond its scope.
> 
> 
> 
> Paola said:
>>  How do you think such 'awareness'  and 'neutrality' should be
>> reflected in our work?
> By "awareness" I meant that the scoping discussions within the XG should 
> acknowledge that there are many socio-political issues involved, and 
> that insights about these issues should contribute to the way we define 
> the practical objectives and approaches of the XG. So, you are right, 
> politics is out there, and we cannot ignore it -- the XG should try to 
> identify a safe route through the archipelago of political tensions.
> 
> Neutrality is along the lines of what I stated above: an enabling 
> conceptualisation that covers what all stakeholders agree is critical 
> (approximately: the intersection of their critical requirements).
> 
> In one way, what we face is what many (most?, all?) W3C groups face -- 
> how to arrive at a core standard that all stakeholders agree covers 
> common issues, that enables value-added things to be built on top of it, 
> and that does not critically constrain the degrees of freedom of the 
> application developers.
> 
> /olle
> 
> 
> 
> Chamindra de Silva wrote:
>>
>> I think Olle and Paola are talking at different levels of this issue. 
>> I agree with both, but in a different context on each point.
>>
>> (1) In agreement with Olle: Interop standards should certainly be 
>> apolitical and agnostic of any particular organizational sensitivities 
>> and play to the lowest common denominator as much as possible. We have 
>> to! otherwise it is not a standard which we can depend on and encode 
>> into our systems to allow them to exchange data electronically.
>>
>> (2) In agreement with Paola: Terminology for end users and systems 
>> will need to be configured to meet the target user group and 
>> organization, national sensitivities. Certainly we can keep that 
>> terminology out of this group, but it would still serve as a valuable 
>> standard and input to forge the interop framework. I think saying 
>> there is political influence is a bit strong, as it is more about 
>> creating ontologies that people can use in common especially in 
>> sharing disaster information (human to human) effectively (without 
>> ambiguity) across nationalities and organizations.
>>
>> paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> So, what I am saying is that (1) I would like to keep all issues
>>>> originating in political structures out of the XG, and at the same time
>>>> (2) the work of the XG must be defined with an awareness of the
>>>> political issues in the field, so that important parties see the XG as
>>>> an opportunity, not a threat.
>>>
>>> HI Olle
>>>
>>> I am sure most of us will agree -  thing is that our 'users' must move
>>> within political constraints and its the politics that prevents
>>> cooperation (more than the technology at times)
>>>
>>> therefore we should design accordingly  - if we simply  'avoid
>>> acknowledging' the issue,
>>> we may produce something that is not easily usable from that viewpoint
>>>
>>>  How do you think such 'awareness'  and 'neutrality' should be
>>> reflected in our work?
>>>
>>> pdm
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 05:55:35 UTC