Re: EIIF - Final report - suggestions for content and structure

Olle and all
thanks for starting this off
also in a hurry so briefly
I think some of the questions you ask, have already been answered
positively otherwise we would not have an incubator now, however, it
would be good to have a layout for our report
What happened to your initial list of questions? I think the first
time you suggested a toc
your questions captured the need to focus, not sure if you have
reproduced them here
some personal thoughts to answer your points below, more later
P



j
> The main two questions that we need to answer are:
> - is it meaningful/valuable to embark on an effort to define an EIIF?
>    Is there a need?

yes - when reporting information after tsunami and katrina, people
used different formats, so parsing/aggregating/searching was a
nightmare - had we had a standard format, everyone could have used it
facilitating the collection/integration of data from different sources
I am sure there are many more reasons

However I agree the need (requirement) nees to be clearly defined

>    Can an initiative fulfill that (theoretical) need?

yes, if the requirement is defined


>    Can it be successful in the competitive space of EM technologies?

I think we should make it clear that we are producing here is not a
technology at all, and we are not competing with anyone  - however, if
you refere to the Oasis effort, for example, we should surely identify
how our effort is different and complementary to other effots

>  That is: answer the question: "why should I (company X) invest in this?"

I dont think a company should invest anything at all (correct me if I
am wrong) however
leading IT companies promote their own image by following good
practices adopting/endorsing 'standards' as we all know MS does (haha,
joke)
I mean, we all use dublin core metadata, nobody owns it.
Its just a more specific set of tags applicable to the em that we are
trying to come up with, the way I see it


> - is this something that W3C should do?

as good as anyone

>    What amount of effort will be required?

how much effort can we spare?

>    Will it contribute to other ongoing work at W3C? (can it be a source of
> insights?)
>    Could it attract new Members to W3C? (ref: the recent discussion about
> W3C finances!)

red cross was not yet a member last time I checked, but w3c membrship
is not the priority here

>  That is: answer the question: "why should it be done within W3C?"
because it promotes W3C standard,
>
>
> _________________________________
> Executive summary
>
>  (some usual stuff)
>
> _________________________________
> The Emergency Management Domain
>
>  A general description that identifies the field in which the XG works. More
>  specific information about the scope of the XG in the next section.
>
> A description of the general area of emergency management (EM).
> Societal costs of disasters and other emergencies can be huge.
> Effective EM needs to be supported.
> A classic case where cooperation between actors is of fundamental
> importance.
> Actors are public sector agencies, commercial companies, NGOs, and even
> individuals can provide valuable support and assistance.
> The need for international cooperation is becoming more urgent.
>
> IT support is very much fragmented -- between agencies as well as within
> agencies.
> Effective cooperative work must be supported by interoperable IT systems and
> platforms.
>
> There are many technologies and standards that are either target or can be
> used in EM.
> But there is a lack of interoperability between these, which causes
> cooperation to be suboptimal.
>
> The XG has investigated/explored the area of standards and technologies, to
> determine whether there is an opportunity to enhance EM by specifying new
> standard(s) in the area.
>
> The general objectives of the XG are:
> - ... (see the XG Charter)
>
> This deliverable describes insights gained, conclusions arrived at, and
> recommendations for further work
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> The 3W area - scope
>
>  A targeted description that identifies the scope of the area in which the
> XG
>  works.
>
> A critical and commonly needed area in terms of supportive information is
> the 3W area, which concerns information about ....
> The XG has identified this as a suitable target for interoperability
> standards in the EM domain.
>
> A more elaborate description of the 3W area is .....
>
> This subset is a core component of the emergency information space.
> It targets, among other things, the "people" aspect, which is one of the key
> objectives of any EM operation.
> It has also relevance for other aspects of EM, like ....
>
>
> _________________________________
> The EM ecosystem
>
>  A description of the "social" context in which we need to find support for
>  further work in this area.
>
> EM concerns a number of stakeholders, with different roles, objectives, and
> interests.
> These form collectively the ecosystem in the EM domain.
> Development of IT standards  must address the drivers and obstacles that
> influence practical adoption of such standards.
> Successful standards take advantage of the interests (today as well as
> tomorrow) of these stakeholders.
>
> The following major stakeholders are identified:
> - dedicated EM agencies at the national level .....
> - NGOs .....
> - EM interest organisation (at a national level: IG, forums, ...) ...
> - international coordination agents ...
> - IT industry as suppliers ....
> - etc
>
> We should also highlight that the success of proposed standards is
> influenced by existing and emerging standards
> The aspects of *compete* (could some other standard be negatively impacted
> by this new proposal, and if so would its supporters "go to war"?) versus
> *cooperate* (is some other standard compatible with the proposed new
> standard, so there is a win-win situation?)
>
> An evaluation of the situation indicates that there is a clear potential for
> a successful standards proposal in 3W area, because ....
>
>
> _________________________________
> Existing standards and technology
>
>  A short summary of the space of relevant standards. Mainly an inventory
> that
>  identifies the specific standards and highlights their main purpose and
>  scope.
>
> The following standards are relevant for the 3W area:
>
> STD-X:
>
> - focus ...
> - scope ...
> - created by ...
> - acceptance/use ...
>
> STD-Y ...
> ...
>
> From the 3W point of view, the following can be said about their relevance
> for the target area: ...
>
> There is a gap or mismatch ... which sheds light on the value of an
> interoperability framework.
> The role of the framework is to ....
>
>
> _________________________________
> A draft model for the 3W area
>
>  We describe in a short way the modelling results that we have achieved. The
>  intension is to give a kind of executive overview of these results. There
> is
>  a separate deliverable that provides more details.
>
> The XG has performed modeling work, based on analysis of existing standards,
> to identify the critical generic entities, and how they are related.
>
> An overview of this model is ....
>
> A detailed description is found in: ....
>
> _________________________________
> Proposal for further work
>
>  This is where we propose what further work to do within W3C. It could be a
>  WG, targeting development of the EIIF framework. Or it could be as an IG,
>  to create the community that could then propose a more elaborated
>  description of a WG.
>
> The results from this XG is a small proof of concept in the 3W domain.
>
> It is promising, both in terms of the model that has been defined, and in
> terms of the experience-based belief that it is possible to create a more
> complete and encompassing interoperability framework.
>
> A realistic proposal for further work is .....
>
> The objectives are ...
>
> Participants in this proposed work should include the following categories
> of stakeholders:
> - national EM agencies:  ...
> - NGOs: ...
> - industry: ...
>
> Informal queries about interest for participation has resulted in positive
> responses from: 2 national EM agencies, 1 NGO, 3 industries, 2 research ...
>
>
> _________________________________
> Use of W3C technologies
>
>  Here we can sell it as something of value for the W3C Semantic Web
> Activity,
>  perhaps.
>
> Interoperability must be based on the conceptual level.
> Semantic Web Technologies target that need.
> The proposal for further work expects to build upon the following SemWeb
> technologies: .....
>
>
> _________________________________
> Governance of the EIIF
>
>  As W3C in practice targets generic technologies (usable across many
>  domains), we need to say something about the relationship between W3C and
>  the result of a EIIF WG.
>
> Valuable and successful standards in some application domain need to evolve,
> when the domains evolve, or when the way actors in the domain change their
> roles of ways of working. The typical need is the need to extend. to extend
> a standard, there needs to be a forum for managing this extension.
>
> Standards and technologies in the EM domain are typically managed and
> governed in one of the following ways: ...
>
> The proposed view is: W3C's role is to host the initial development of a
> core standard (EIIF). Once this has received approval (in what way?) by the
> stakeholders in the ecosystem, a governance strategy must be defined.
>
>  Well, a strategy should be done before committing W3C resources. So how to
>  handle this hen-and-egg situation?
>
> This may be in terms of maintenance work done at W3C by stakeholders.
> Or it could be done by transferring the standard to some other
> standardisation initiative.
>
>  This is a tricky question, and should be managed somehow. Could be by us
>  keeping a blind eye on this question and hope nobody raises issues. Or that
>  we just suggest alternatives. Or that we somehow check with other
>  initiatives whether they would be willing to take oven governance. But then
>  we get the question: why not do all the work inside that initiative
> instead?
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> Summary
>
>  Yes, something that matches the executive summary...
>
>
> ==================================================================
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Olle Olsson   olleo@sics.se   Tel: +46 8 633 15 19  Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
>        [Svenska W3C-kontoret: olleo@w3.org]
> SICS [Swedish Institute of Computer Science]
> Box 1263
> SE - 164 29 Kista
> Sweden
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>



-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************

Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 13:20:25 UTC