Re: categorization of information/priority

Yes Gav,
good  to work with people who are quick to grasp =

except perhaps that these categorization issues is a bit messy, and we have
to be really careful with categories and reality

what we aim for I think is a 'multifaceted categorization'
similar to tagging concept, but according to a hierarchy

in principle what I have in mind is the following

search for 'functional response', on say, google

instead of getting the usual bunch of unsorted links, we get clusters of
links according to
tags/categories.

Generally speaking these could be user defined (the user choses what
categories they want to sort their link view) text analysis in the browser
technology is what I am after
(I am  this technology is ready to be rolled out in Beta)

However, ad hoc macros could be produced, to model a specific instance or
area of interest
so for example, for all the bunch of links that come up with the 'functional
response' search, there could be a view  to sort them say by geography,
language, institution, and whatever hierarchy you like to have for a usable
information architecture


we could  try to omprove/refine/elaborate your sample tagging schema below
maybe using more self descriptive tags (lets ask the users perhaps) and
then  assume we can map that to geography/locations, and attach as you say

a list of people/email/phones/faxes/language spoken information to each
location
]
so, functional response search would yield a useful, actionable, information

next problem would be validation, and keeping it uptodate

I think it can be done, hope it makes sense, at least in part
something like that, yes

PDM


On 6/19/07, Gavin Treadgold <gt@kestrel.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Sure, perhaps the best practical way of improving this is to merge
> the collaborative document development process with an ontology so
> that all elements or a plan are marked up as the plan is written and
> modified. Some aspects that could be tagged in a response plan include:
>
>   * Response structure diagram
>   * Functions
>      * Planning
>      * Intelligence
>      * Logistics etc
>   * Role description
>      * Relationships (reports to, manages, liaises with)
>      * Responsibilities
>   * Processes
>      * Activation
>      * Notification
>        * Contact list
>      * Standing down
>
> Text in the plan could be tagged - such that a position description
> in a response plan could be represented by XML using the ontology. As
> well as using this for display formatting and producing plans using a
> consistent format (agencies often have to have a number of different
> organisations plans to hand - and they always use different
> formatting and markup), the content would also be marked-up using the
> ontology.
>
> The nifty part would come when you could take a plan that is marked
> up like this, throw it at say Sahana (I'm biased of course ;) ) and
> have it customise the Sahana configuration based upon the computer-
> readable definitions contained within the plan. E.g building up
> default software users in Sahana based upon the response structure,
> and role descriptions. Customising a Sahana server could be as quick
> and easy as importing your plan! Of course, the obvious thing to do
> would be to create a module that combines all this so that any
> realtime changes in the plan are reflected in the Sahana server
> hosting it. As was previously discussed on HICT - we want to get this
> sort of integration into Sahana so that the plan and technology
> enabler are completely integrated.
>
> E.g. within the plan may be a list of people that need to be notified
> if a certain event occurs. Wouldn't it be fantastic if the simple act
> of editing the plan dynamically modified the actual group within the
> messaging module as soon as the change is submitted (and approved if
> required). And a link is created automatically next to the list in
> the plan that takes the user directly to the form to send out an
> alert using the messaging module.
>
> This is the sort of integration that will really wow emergency
> managers, but it requires an ontology for the underlying data so the
> computer can understand it and know what to do with it.
>
> Is that the sort of thing you were after Paola?
>
> Cheers Gav
>
>
> On 12/06/2007, at 17:39, paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I think the categorization of information is something that we
> > should work alongside with
> >
> > at the moment when I search, as you suggest 'functional response
> > plans' I retrieve a bunch of unstructured links, with no
> > apperent logic/functional cluster attached to it
> >
> > It would be good if we could find a way of  adding a categorization
> > layer that 'sorts' these search results
> > into broad categories, this is generallay done trhough metatada,
> > tags  or other superstructures like RDF
> >
> > I believe this is something that many of us in the internet
> > research and ontology community are already working on,  and
> > probably a priority on googles 'to do' list too, so maybe this
> > could be included in the scope of this workgroup too?
> > ideas?
>
>


-- 



Paola Di Maio *****
School of Information Technology
Mae Fah Luang University
Chiang Rai - Thailand
*********************************************