- From: Kauppinen Tomi <tomi.kauppinen@aalto.fi>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:18:45 +0000
- To: Eva Blomqvist <evabl444@gmail.com>
- CC: "<public-emergency@w3.org>" <public-emergency@w3.org>
Hi Eva, Thanks for sharing, excellent idea about EDXL. Hopefully they will join the group! Tomi On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Eva Blomqvist wrote: > Hi! > With respect to the following item: > > * Thinking outside the box: looking at standards in the domain and > data sources that are important to "talk to" (such as OGC services), > but that are not based on semweb tech > > I have previously worked with people from the US navy and other US organizations (in the context of W3C activities), who are also heavily involved in the OASIS standardization activity that develops the EDXL messaging standard (XML-based) for exchanging emergency information: > https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=emergency > Several of them were really interested to explore the potential of Sem Web technologies for extending EDXL. This could be one thing to look into. I have also sent them the link to this community group, so perhaps they will join us. > > Cheers, > Eva > > On 18/6/2013 12:27 , Carsten Keßler wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Bart, Tomi and myself have been discussing potential work items for >> the group over the last couple of days. Here's a pleminary list that >> we would like to put up for discussion: >> >> * Overview of existing ontologies, vocabularies (based on results of >> Disaster 2.0 project) >> * Discussion about required level of formalization (SKOS, RDFS, >> different OWL profiles) >> * Brainstrom about use cases where reasoning capabilities are required >> * Guidelines for alignment between existing ontologies >> * Thinking outside the box: looking at standards in the domain and >> data sources that are important to "talk to" (such as OGC services), >> but that are not based on semweb tech >> * Get in touch with maintainers of important reference lists in the >> domain to help them publish the lists in more reusable forms >> * adaption of existing workflows: how to make the move to semweb tech >> for an organization as smooth as possible (this is not an emergency >> information specific item, though) >> * reflect on the specific requirements of emergency information, >> especially timeliness – how well can we actually deal with that? >> * Collect existing use cases of SW tech in emergency management (HXL, >> IATI, MOAC, …) and assess impact >> * Identify and prioritize gaps: what specific requirements does >> emergency management have concerning semantic annotations, and which >> of these are not met by existing vocabularies yet? >> * Complexity of the models and vocabularies; assessment of the >> usability — how much effort is needed to quickly utilize such valuable >> information management resources >> * Communicating about and listing the availability of existing >> datasets about disasters >> * Discussing scenarios for use of the data >> >> If you think that anything is missing or that any of the items should >> not be in the scope of this group, please let us know. We have also >> copied the list on the wiki [1], so if you make any changes, please do >> it there. >> >> Since the summer break is coming up, we would like to leave us some >> time to discuss and prioritize these items until July 19. After that >> deadline, these items should be the basis for the further work of the >> group. >> >> Cheers, >> Carsten >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/emergency/wiki/Work_items >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 08:28:30 UTC