Re: EM Standards List

Just to add to Don's note:

One of the 12 major recommendations from the US Academy Report "Successful 
Response Starts with a Map" was to break down the communication barriers 
between the EM, GIS, and IT communities and to enhance EM training of GIS 
professionals that work in EOCs and so forth, to enhance training of EM 
professionals on geospatial technologies and so on. This work of this forum 
is right in line with the cross-community communication/training 
recommendation.

Regards

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <donc@internode.on.net>
To: "Gavin Treadgold" <gt@kestrel.co.nz>; "public-xg-eiif" 
<public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Cc: "Tom Worthington" <Tom.Worthington@tomw.net.au>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: EM Standards List


>
> Tom I think what is being suggested is to simply try and
> keep preliminary discussions within the context of the
> project. Any systems development firstly requires
> understanding and framing the domain in which the system
> will operate, and as far as I can tell there are no reasons
> offered to treat this project any differently. We are within
> the phase of framing a well known, studied and practiced
> domain.
>
> What I do support is the right of anyone to voice personal
> opinion on how this domain (EM) *should* operate, and
> believe me, after more than 20 years training and working as
> a Response Agency Commander at some of our most severe
> floods, storms, fires, earthquakes, search & rescue, civil
> evacuations, hazardous material incidents  etc. etc. I have
> plenty of views on how EM *could* be improved!...
> nonetheless, as Gav suggests this is not the appropriate
> forum.
>
> Perhaps what we really need are computing professionals
> prepared to join this innitiative with an open mind - to
> learn about disasters and emergency management while EM folk
> learn of the ways by which ontological and other computing
> developments can assist them in their  management of
> emergency priorities (to preserve life and property). I
> don't see any reason why we cannot learn from each other.
>
> PS - I also had no luck finding the references on your blog
> - but I'm usually not very successful when navigating the
> chaos of the blogosphere, so it's probably just me!
>
> Kind regards,
> Don Cameron
>
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Please don't leave the list.
>>
>> I think it is important to highlight the current scope of
>> this work in   the incubator group is not to create
>> anything new (yet), but just to   get an understanding of
>> what is out there in terms of standards for EM   - an
>> environmental scan, if you will. Changing the world comes
>> later -   hence the focus is on what exists now. Then we
>> can have the discussion   on where we would like to be and
>> identify the gaps.
>>
>> Also, I wasn't able to see which article you were
>> referring to on your   blog page.
>>
>> So, I do support Don trying to keep us on topic on this
>> list,   otherwise we won't achieve our objective. One of
>> the reasons I'm   trying to focus on getting content in
>> the wiki rather than discussing   things on the list. Many
>> of us have already been bogged down in   similar
>> discussions on H-ICT, and I would not want to see the same
>>   start here.
>>
>> Humanitarian-ICT is probably still the better list to
>> discuss where   you would like to see things heading for
>> the time being.
>>
>> Cheers Gavin
>>
>> PS and defining what a credentialed emergency manager
>> looks like is   not easy. The only formal credential I'm
>> aware of is the Certified   Emergency Manager (CEM), and
>> if that was the requirement, then this   list would be a
>> very lonely place. There are many EM qualifications,   but
>> these alone do not make the individual certified as
>> emergency   managers nor does it give them any legal
>> standing (compared to say   chartered engineers or similar
>> that have their credential defined in   law).
>>
>> On 2008-03-03, at 1124, Tom Worthington wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > At 02:04 PM 27/02/2008, donc@internode.on.net wrote:
>> >> ... this particular initiative has a well defined
>> mission to create   >> an ontology for the EM domain; and
>> that at least at this point in   >> time the mission does
>> not include trying to reinvent the science of   >>
>> emergency management (noting EM is nowadays qualified and
>> >> quantified by academic and other globally recognised
>> >> certifications ...
>> >
>> > Apologies, it appears I am not qualified to participate
>> > in the list   as I am not a credentialed EM specialist.
>> > So I will un-subscribe and   wish you well with the
>> work. >
>> > Perhaps W3C might consider a new activity to involve EM
>> > specialists   with IT people such as myself, to use the
>> > web for EM communications   to and between the public.
>> To get an idea of what I have in mind:
>> <http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/labels/emergency management
>> > .html  >.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom Worthington FACS HLM tom.worthington@tomw.net.au Ph:
>> > 0419 496150 Director, Tomw Communications Pty Ltd
>> >     ABN: 17 088 714 309 PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617
>> >                   http://www.tomw.net.au/ Adjunct Senior
>> Lecturer, ANU >
>> >
>>
>

Received on Monday, 3 March 2008 16:01:02 UTC