- From: Paul Currion <paul@currion.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:44:28 +0200
- To: public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote: > Well, have you noticed how we have shifted from 3w being a standard to being a tool? > W3 was a tool which was developed in the field; OCHA have built a schema on the basis of that experience; the schema can usefully be abstracted into a standard. This will enable other entities involved in co-ordinating organisational responses to adapt and adopt the standard to ensure interoperability (as well as a more effective response). > 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 don't believe that it does not reflect OCHA's internal organisational model. It reflects the model of humanitarian co-ordination in the field. OCHA is the organisation usually mandated and tasked to deal with this, which may be the source of your misunderstanding. However other organisations also have responsibility for co-ordination, notably national governments and cluster lead agencies; such a standard would be useful for them. As per Gavin's comment, the W3 (whether the tool or the standard we might be able to develop) addresses one specific aspect of humanitarian response. We should not imagine that it addresses the full range of requirements of beneficiaries and responders. However since we have OCHA involved in these discussions, we are more likely to be able to have a constructive impact. cheers Paul C
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 10:43:00 UTC