RE: Requirement for 3W interop standard (new proposed schema attached)

Paola,

In the F2F in Washington DC we scoped the 3W/4W as described by Gavin. I completely agree that there must be a “needs” layer that is centered around the affected population (I detest the phrasing “victim” and can’t too strongly suggest we never use it except for law enforcement/human rights contexts) as well as the current “response” layer. Thankfully, finally, the humanitarian clusters are starting to talk about this in their data models, and definitely affected populations must included in the incubator’s data model from the start.

So – we have a semantic confusion about how we should scope “who”. One is organizational, and one is affected populations. In the 3W context for historical reasons it’s the organization/group providing assistance/services (of course this usually includes the affected population themselves, something usually ignored in the UN context). Usefully - from a data perspective responding organizations “need” assistance as well – goods, staff and services – to continue their work, and they, like affected populations, provide capabilities. I like the thought of a symmetric integrated model along these lines.

So - I’s no news to all of us that the scope of a solution/application affects which components of a data model are used. The 3W/4W focuses on “response”.

My suggestion is that when discussing the 3W/4W use case we confine the “who” to organization providing services, but in the data models that come out  we ensure that the who are subclassed/flagged into both a “needs” component including affected groups and organizations requiring/recieving support/supplies/services, and a “response” component that includes capabilities and activities/outcomes/assistance/services provided.

Nigel

From: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 8:38 AM
To: Gavin Treadgold
Cc: public-xg-eiif
Subject: Re: Requirement for 3W interop standard (new proposed schema attached)

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 ?


assuming 'directory' is accetaptable description for everybody, it should be designed
to be flexible to accommodate for all stakeholder  requirements, so we definetely gotta talk




--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th<http://www.mfu.ac.th>
*********************************************