- From: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:55:12 -0600
- To: "Mandana Sotoodeh" <mandanas@ece.ubc.ca>, "public-xg-eiif" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>, "Paolo Palmero" <palmero@un.org>
Apologies for jumping into this dialogue a bit late, but this discussion made be think of the work being done in NIEM http://www.niem.gov/niem-2/niem/index.html . I know that they have covered much of this ground. Perhaps there is something that can be reused from the NIEM schemas and information models. Regards Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mandana Sotoodeh" <mandanas@ece.ubc.ca> To: "public-xg-eiif" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>; "Paolo Palmero" <palmero@un.org> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 12:51 PM Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard (new proposed schema attached) > > Hi Paolo and all, > > Thanks for the attachment and your comment. I believe these are updated > diagrams (comparing to what is in the functional schema) . If they are, we > may need to upload it to wiki to complement OCHA functional specification. > > My understanding is to use the existing models to come up with a more > general and encompassing model. OCHA and Sahana have assumptions ( in > terms of goals, scope of activities, focusing on a particular disaster > phase or across phases, or the users) based on which the schema may form > one way or another. The comparison will help to explore those assumptions. > This will help us to define the scope of our work in the disaster domain > as well. > > I am going to compile some issues. If any of these are correct, then > ideally the model should be able to address them no matter how OCHA or > Sahana does it (to my humble opinion). > > 1- Organization like Red Cross may set up local offices depending on the > type of activities or given emergency. However could we have independent > local offices which participate in an activity, for example, by providing > fund or resources such as people? Could we have one entity to represent > both kinds? If yes, then we may need the schema to allow to have offices > independent of organizations (Office may not be a good name for it). If > they can't be the same entity, please share some use cases of how it works > in reality. > > 2- Can OrgPerson represent the volunteers that join an activity on fly? > There might be some volunteers that are available but not particularly > assigned to any activity. Do we need different entities to represent them? > If not, then the model should allow a contact person to be part of the > staff or on its own. (OrgPerson is not a good name either since in that > case it doesn’t have to be attached to an organization but potentially the > model should allow it). > > Paolo, are you trying to say that it would be a more accurate > representation if we link the Contact ( which is represented here by > OrgPerson) to Activity directly ( as a resource ) rather than to the > Office? > > 3- The office, Contact and Activity have their own assigned locations. > This allows to model activities that occur in a different location than > the office executing it. At the same time the model captures location > information about the office as well. It also allows to have information > about the location of contact people when they are not assigned to any > activity. > > Paolo, I believe the model addresses what you mentioned. Please let me > know if I'm still missing your point. > > Please provide your feedback that can be incorporated into the model. > > Renato: I imported the file into MS Visio but it doesn’t allow me to edit > it neatly. > > By the way, Chamindra, your attachment is not readable. Would you re-send > it (in different format maybe)? > > Thank you, > Mandana > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Paolo Palmero" <palmero@un.org> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:38 PM > To: "public-xg-eiif" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard (new proposed schema > attached) > >> Dear Mandana, >> >> The physical entity of an organization (offices) are used more with >> relation to contacts rather than activities. As far as activities are >> concerned we are generally interested in where the activity is happening >> rather than the physical location of the organization that is executing >> it. >> I hope this clarifies how we use and structured the 3W. Please let us >> know >> if you have any questions or need any clarifications on OCHA's 3W. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Paolo >> (See attached file: 3w_DB_Schema_Ver_Proposed.vsd) >> >> Paolo Palmero >> Information Management Officer (GIS) >> Field Information Services Unit (AIMB) >> United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) >> DC1-1358, One UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017 >> Tel: +1-917-367-5424 >> Mobile: +1-917-349-4506 >> Skype: palmerop >> Email: palmero@un.org >> http://ochaonline.un.org/ >> >> >> >> public-xg-eiif@w3 >> .org >> Sent by: To >> public-xg-eiif-re "public-xg-eiif" >> quest@w3.org <public-xg-eiif@w3.org> >> cc >> >> 04-08-08 03:26 Subject >> Re: Requirement for 3W interop >> standard >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Paola and all, >> >> Sounds like in OCHA schema, Organization is more of a conceptual entity >> than physical entity (ie physically located). Offices are the ones >> involved >> directly in the activities and indirectly link OrgPerson to the >> organization. However we should consider the situations where local >> agencies help with response activities, for example, or where volunteers >> are part of the task force. Offices work in general sectors (ie provide >> general services) but they have specific responsibilities in the context >> of >> a given activities. I agree that some naming don’t represent the concepts >> very well. It would be more helpful, if you could be more specific. As we >> get other schemas, we will refine the concepts too. >> >> Regards, >> Mandana, >> >> >> >> From: paola.dimaio@gmail.com >> Sent:. Friday, August 01, 2008 8:03 PM >> To: Mandana Sotoodeh >> Cc: public-xg-eiif >> Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard >> >> Mandana, Paolo >> >> Great great thanks for starting this up, it looks like there are some >> conceptual challenges ahead >> >> I am looking at the diagram on the fly (did not study in depth), and have >> a >> few questions >> >> 1. I can see no link between organisation and orgperson, should there be >> a >> relationship there? I am not sure if orgperson main relation should be >> office, sound weak >> >> 2. does Location not have any attributes? should there be something >> written >> in the box >> >> 3. service links to orgperson with relationship -hasobjectives- not sure >> I >> understand, a few other relations seem brittle >> >> 4. I wonder if there is a rule as to how to name in the singular/plural >> the >> entities and the relationships and attributes (sing or plu, should be >> constant?), as well as the choice of names for them, if should be made >> more >> logical and consistent as much as possible >> I wonder if the relationships whould have names more semantically alighed >> with the entities they relate to, less ambiguous kind of thing >> >> will study further >> >> thanks again >> >> best >> >> PDM >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Mandana Sotoodeh <mandanas@ece.ubc.ca> >> wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> Please find the main concepts derived from OCHA schema here: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/wiki/images/7/71/W3-Model.pdf. >> >> Renato kindly organized them graphically. >> >> Paolo, thank you for providing the documents. >> >> Your feedback is appreciated: if you have any specific scenario in mind >> (in the boundary of W3) that you think the model may not address well; >> such as volunteers or activities for day to day emergency operations >> (like drug abuse) as opposed to emergency response (like evacuation), or >> any suggestions for naming of concepts (ex. office or emergency). As we >> get other schemas/models, we will revise it accordingly. >> >> Thanks very much, >> >> Mandana >> >> >> >> From: Renato Iannella >> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 4:29 PM >> To: public-xg-eiif >> Cc: Vincent Lalieu >> Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard >> >> >> On 9 Jul 2008, at 18:46, Paul Currion wrote: >> >> The 3W / W3 schema can be found at >> >> http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/imtoolbox/02_Standard_Products/01_W3/3W_Tool/3wSchema2_0.pdf. >> >> Thanks Paul. >> >> This is a good opportunity to review the Use Case [1] against the OCHA >> Schema and determine any gaps. >> Then look at the outcome and move towards defining the *core8 elements >> of >> a W3/3W "standard". >> Any volunteers to take this on? >> >> Cheers... Renato Iannella >> NICTA >> >> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/wiki/WWWWCoord> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paola Di Maio >> School of IT >> www.mfu.ac.th >> ********************************************* > > >
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2008 21:57:22 UTC