Re: Teleconference Today - CIQ

I too was think that the vCard format should be included in how we capture
information about people. vCard is now supported by most mobile phones and
various PIM (Personal Information Management) Systems, so supporting it at a
low-level would provided a lot of benefits in terms of compatibility with a
wide range of existing systems. To fully support all the fields however I
see some form of specification upon vCard that should be compatible with the
existing vCard standard.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org> wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Chamindra de Silva
http://chamindra.googlepages.com