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

In Sahana we have these two as separate modules.

1) "Who is doing What Where" is the traditional 3W application called the
Organization Registry.

2) "Who _needs_ What Where" is a bulletin board of people requesting aid on
behalf of a victim group in the field called the (Aid) Request Management
System. It also track pledges of aid.

The prior operates at a high level of services provided (e.g. medical,
sanitation, food, water) by a responder group across the affected area,
whilst the later works with units of aid needed specifically by a victim
group (e.g. 100 Tents)

I would prefer we stick to the traditional sense of the 3W  (i.e. option 1)
to keep things simple for now and to help us can quickly get through the
full cycle up to an interop standard recommendation. We can always improve
that standard and build it up incrementally from there, though I completely
understand that everything is very closely related.

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Nigel Snoad <nigelsno@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  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
> *********************************************
>