Re: EIIF draft needs unified person

yes I think so
different disciplines may look at the distinction in different ways

I suspect , that human is just a kind of animal (no offense),

this means entity>>>physical>>>animal>>>mammals>>>>human

(we need to decide what convention to follow,
and                                                       somehow this leads
us toward  DOLCE direction)

, I would agree with further abstraction choice, although perhaps would
first try to sort out the people branch, the rest of the animals model can
follow - part of the schema for humans can be used for other animals too,
although parts of it may e different

along those lines, 'people' is very generic
I think we can agree that women, children, elderly and disabled people may
all have
specialised EM requirements. although these can be indirectly captured by
their
ID records, i wonder if they should be emphasised anywhere

i cant remember if we have a slot for 'disability' in the attributes, I
assume so

PDM


On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Gavin Treadgold <gt@kestrel.co.nz> wrote:

> If that's the case, then why aren't we starting with a high-level 'entity'
> that then can be classed as a person or an animal?
>
> From an EM perspective, domestic and farm animals often require significant
> support and management during a disaster. They have similar welfare needs to
> humans - shelter, food, water, medical attention via vets,
> association/ownership etc. As they have similar welfare needs, a similar
> approach may be applied by emergency managers to manage animal welfare needs
> as those managing human welfare needs.
>
> Property on the other hand, does not share this level of similarity to
> people, in that information about property has more relevance to physical
> damage, economic loss etc. That says to me that animals are inherently
> different to property, even though they are at times treated as such. I
> think this is because they are a living entity rather than an inanimate
> object, and that they have biological needs similar to humans.
>
> To me this suggests that animal's needs to be supported by the same root
> construct as people - particularly needs, medical and association for
> starters.
>
> Cheers Gav
>
>
>
> On 2008-12-04, at 1505, paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Renato
>
> I was thinking about the pets too (I think everyone knows about your cats)
>
> After Katrina, a service sprung up that was 'petfinder', and the modelling
> question arose
> are pets people or things? Being neither, I think a separate category was
> devised at the time. Our schema so far does not include property, so if pets
> are considered personal property conceptually they are not in there,
> however, if we consider pets like family, then maybe they need to be
> represented too at some point , pets can be patients too
> (perhaps when we have sorted out people model).
>
> pdm
>
>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
MFU.ac.th
*********************************************