- From: Don Cameron <donc@internode.on.net>
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:27:09 +1100
- To: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, <humanitarian-ict@yahoogroups.com>
- Cc: "'public-xg-eiif'" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
> This means what each of us can gather whatever standards they > consider a standard to them or whatever other convention they > suggest is considered for comparison/evaluation Hi Paola, Just for clarification, I was not suggesting we accept interpretive definitions of an 'EM standard' by members of this group, many of whom I believe are IT professionals working in support of this initiative. I'm not sure how many EM domain professionals and practitioners we have. I am certainly keen to promote the need to include standards recognised as such by the domain itself as necessary for incorporation into an emergency management ontology. Eg: ISO 7731 describes the requirements for auditory danger signals in a structural emergency. ISO 8201 describes the internationally agreed signal that unequivocally means "evacuate immediately". Elements of these standards are not open to interpretation; they are globally accepted to the extent they impact on international trade (manufacturers of emergency alert systems cannot export or have imported any devices that fails to meet the ISO standard). These, many other ISO's and adopted standards (systems and languages accepted by EM orgs globally and incorporated into local standards in the manner the language of ICS became componentry of NIIMS and AIIMS) actually form the base of emergency management doctrine. My concern is that as a group we may lack the resources to properly identify and where necessary seek and gain approval to use all these standards. Further, that personal preference and affiliation may impact on the weighting given to certain standards. This is a great initiative with enormous potential, however an initiative that also has potential to inhibit emergency relief efforts if by omission it poses as authoritative yet fails to incorporate vital elements. There is significant responsibility associated with this endeavour (fortunately no different to most other EM undertakings where the identification and management of risk is fundamental). For my part I will try and collate as many recognised standards as I can and post them here for inclusion into whatever directory is deemed most appropriate. I also agree with other posters that the real challenge commences once we attempt to correlate and map elements of all the various standards. Best regards, Don Cameron -----Original Message----- From: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2008 8:31 PM To: humanitarian-ict@yahoogroups.com Cc: public-xg-eiif Subject: Re: FW: EM Standards List hi Don and all apologies for late intro to this incubator list, been swamped on other fronts I am an information systems analyst, designer and consultant, with an interest in open source and online collaboration. I have been studying FOSS in relation to EM since 2005, and have been keen to see progress in this area since I realized the lack of compatible data formats is the biggest stumbling block to information integration/aggregation during emergencies, and the lack of information architecture is partly responsible for the weaknesses and lack of adoption of some FOSS software (bla bla bla) two links referenced below I very much look forward to be working on a public recommendation for future adoption My question to this group - how do we incorporate all the practiced, recognised, accredited proprietary EM standards into this initiative? - Should we be approaching FEMA, EMA, JICA, CFA, MCDEM, IAAI etc. for permission to interrogate and use their EM standards, languages and systems? If so who will undertake this task? Don I think we already discussed this (somewhere, sometime) each member of the workgroup will elicit the information based on their proximity (either geographical, or disciplinary) to the information source This means what each of us can gather whatever standards they consider a standard to them or whatever other convention they suggest is considered for comparison/evaluation We can periodically review the inputs and decide what to do next accordingly... whatdyathink Best, Paola Di Maio early contributions on this topic on the list below http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanitarian-ict/ some thoughts from last year opensource.mit.edu/papers/TOWARDS_AN_OPEN_ONTOLOGY_FOR_ER.pdf - -- Paola Di Maio School of IT www.mfu.ac.th *********************************************
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2008 11:27:23 UTC