Re: Teleconference Today - CIQ

Might be interesting to cross walk this discussion with the content models 
being defined as part of the US Next Generation 9-1-1 initiative. For 
obvious reasons, all of these terms being discussed in this activity need to 
be clearly defined and agreed to in order for emergency response and 9-1-1 
response to be effective. I cannot remember if they have considered CIQ. 
However, they have been discussing the use of vCard (an internet standard). 
Also, as a point of interest, the address elements of the KML 2.2 schema are 
CIQ.

Regards

Carl



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gavin Treadgold" <gt@kestrel.co.nz>
To: "public-xg-eiif" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Teleconference Today


>
> Hi all,
>
> On 2008-07-18, at 0158, paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 1. I agreee with Gary's suggestion that we need more high level 
>> abstraction modelling. One example is that 'missing people' is not  an 
>> entity , 'person' is an entity, and 'missing' is a state. Unless  we 
>> identify our top level entities correctly, we are wasting energy
>
> +1 we need the most simple neutral entities to deal with. I still  think 
> the CIQ standards provide a good existing basis for this.
>
>> Just for simplifcation, the model  used in the past is
>>
>> em provider
>> em beneficiary
>> other
>
>
> Even these are not clear cut - a person may be a beneficiary of  building 
> services (because they lost their home) but may also be  acting as a 
> provider of other services (helping others rebuild their  home as well). 
> So any model has to support multiple provider and  beneficiary states, and 
> also reflect and capture that these may change  over time e.g. services 
> provided/received during response are  different to those for longer term 
> recovery.
>
> Most people that live in the affected areas over the years following  an 
> event are likely to be both providers and beneficiaries, so I don't  think 
> we can categorise people/orgs as simply provider/beneficiary.  Even 
> organisations that come in from outside the affected region will  still 
> need to be a beneficiary of local services unless they are  entirely 
> self-sufficient in their operation - e.g. supporting  infrastructure.
>
> So, I would suggest that provider and beneficiary are also states, and 
> that a person/org can exist in multiple of these states concurrently.
>
> Cheers Gav
>

Received on Friday, 18 July 2008 15:36:22 UTC