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

Hi all,

I'm very keen to microformats adopted within Sahana and other  
applications as well. It is a small, simple step that can be taken to  
make data machine readable using existing schemas. hCard (a web form  
of vCard) is a good example, and I'd like to see an hCard embedded on  
every page in Sahana for example that displays a persons contact  
details. Likewise, any page that displays, say, location information  
for a welfare centre, as well as embedded the contact details for the  
centre as an hCard, should also include the geo tags for its location.

http://microformats.org/

I'd also support Carl on adoption of the Customer Information Quality  
standard rather than reinventing the wheel. In New Zealand we are  
seeing CIQ increasingly being promoted as a means of consistently  
recording information about governments transactions with its  
citizens. This of course makes it a natural bedfellow for emergency  
management.

I'm always keen to support the adoption of business-as-usual standards  
in preference to those specifically designed for specifically for  
emergencies. The reason? Well it is the network effort - business-as- 
usual standards will be far more widely deployed than emergency- 
specific standards. This means that if we adopt these in preference,  
we will be interoperable with a far wider range of systems.

Cheers Gav

On 2008-08-13, at 1031, Carl Reed wrote:

> Chamindra
>
> Do you use the vCard (IETF RFCs 2425 and 2426) definitions in any of  
> your work? Just a question - but in terms of broader applicability  
> of any emergency interop standards, I would strongly encourage this  
> group to leverage the existing standards for address, name,  
> organization, etc from the IETF and OASIS. There is also  
> considerable work being done in this area by NENA for the Next  
> Generation 9-1-1 activity in the US. They are looking to mandate  
> vCard and CIQ for certain elements of the new information  
> architecture for NG 9-1-1.
>
> Regards
>
> Carl Reed
> CTO
> OGC
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chamindra de Silva
> To: Nigel Snoad
> Cc: paola.dimaio@gmail.com ; Gavin Treadgold ; public-xg-eiif
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:46 PM
> Subject: 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
> *********************************************
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 22:45:10 UTC