- From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:51:09 -0400
- To: "Chamindra de Silva" <chamindra@opensource.lk>
- Cc: "Nigel Snoad" <nigelsno@microsoft.com>, "Gavin Treadgold" <gt@kestrel.co.nz>, public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Chamindra the point that is that while it is fully legitimate for you as Sahana developer to create a system in whatever way you chose to model, it would be unfair that your personal choices as a developer constrain the (potential) global scope of this workgroup, which in its small way is rather ambitious:make a contribution to how EM information web based exchanged can be made more meaningful, representative, and efficient. We can only achieve that if we are innovative, critical and proactive in our modelling approach. If we as a workgroup produce an integrated model, you will be able to use it and apply according to your preference, including just adopting a subset (part 1), without narrowing its overall capability. PDM On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Chamindra de Silva <chamindra@opensource.lk> wrote: > 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 >> ********************************************* > -- Paola Di Maio School of IT www.mfu.ac.th *********************************************
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 06:51:47 UTC