- From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:19:46 +0700
- To: "Olle Olsson" <olleo@sics.se>
- Cc: public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
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