- From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:10:23 -0400
- To: "Paul Currion" <paul@currion.net>
- Cc: public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
hi Paul Well, have you noticed how we have shifted from 3w being a standard to being a tool? we should definitely try to start agreeing a vocabulary (oh boy have I been there before) so that we can agree on what we are doing/trying to do The OCHA schema already exists - Paolo sent one with a document describing the rationale behind it a whie back - so what we have to agree is whether such a 3w schema is usable generally. From what I have seen, it reflects OCHA internal organisational model, therefore, it needs to be abstracted further. I have proposed a further abstraction, where I also include WHO1 (which Renato says its somewhere else - do we have a map? should our stuff all be in one model, or should we have separate models? integrated models is the most uptodate approach) which anyone using the model in a different way can leave out if they so wish What's next? P On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Paul Currion <paul@currion.net> wrote: > Gavin is right about the position of the W3 in the humanitarian response - > it is a system to identify Who (which organisation) is doing What (which > activities) Where (in which locations). Clearly there are other information > requirements in an emergency, but that doesn't invalidate the W3 as an > essential tool. It can and should be matched against areas such as > beneficiary requirements using the georeferenced Where - at least that's > what we were aiming for. > > paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote: > > Gavin > >> >> My understanding is the 3W is 'just' a directory application, hence the >> schema is designed around providing directory services. > > May I ask what is that assumption based on? > Did we as a group discuss/agree on such a constraint? > Is there any more useful purpose for which we need a 3W metaset? > Is the schema for a service directory part of our mission ? > > I think the assumption is based on the fact that we're looking at the W3 as > a use case scenario, and that is the use for which the W3 was designed, in > response to the actual requirements of humanitarian co-ordination in > repeated emergency operations. Once again I had assumed that, since the > group had agreed that this was a valid area to consider at the face-to-face > meeting, this was clearly understood. > > cheers > > Paul C > -- Paola Di Maio School of IT www.mfu.ac.th *********************************************
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 02:11:00 UTC