- From: Chamindra de Silva <chamindra@opensource.lk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:30:53 +0530
- To: "Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>
- Cc: "Nigel Snoad" <nigelsno@microsoft.com>, paola.dimaio@gmail.com, "Gavin Treadgold" <gt@kestrel.co.nz>, public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <20eab7c50808140400k3fc92d72i1a9f60015cd4318a@mail.gmail.com>
I agree that we need to leverage existing standards and I am a supporter of using vCard for Sahana (especially as you can easily exchange data with mobile phones). Once a recommendation is made here for 3W (inc probably vCard) we will put this as a specification to the Sahana project community. On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org> 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 <chamindra@opensource.lk> > *To:* Nigel Snoad <nigelsno@microsoft.com> > *Cc:* paola.dimaio@gmail.com ; Gavin Treadgold <gt@kestrel.co.nz> ; > public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org> > *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 Thursday, 14 August 2008 11:01:30 UTC