- From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:01:42 +0700
- To: rebecca_curzon@us.ibm.com
- Cc: "Renato Iannella" <renato@nicta.com.au>, public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Renato and all I ll try to be on the call tonight, if not please post any items you want input/comment on to the list first, well done to all for getting this far! a few additional thoughts from me as I read the doc: - if I understand correctly where we stand, the report is only at the preliminary stage investigating the premises for a w3c recommendation in this area, and doing the ground work for an ontology - this mans that the EM ontology framework work will start afresh if the w3c decides so after evaluating the outcome of the report . If so, or if otherwise, should we have a sentence somewhere at the top of the report to frame the scope of the report itself, and place our findings into a longer term perspective? - do we need a vocabulary now or later? if we need a vocabulary now, to attach to the report, we need to provide a definition, or more than one definition, for each word used in the schema (that includes em as rebecca noted) - I presume producing rdf/owl is not within the scope of this deliverable (I agree this would be premature, just wondering) - conceptual framework may not be the best name for that diagram. In my use for the word, the conceptual framework is something a bit more formalized, and boiled down what we have i probably would call a mind map or a topic map, which is just the preliminary sketch for the conceptual framework and generally the kind of artifacts that is produced when brainstorming - i think it may be worth mentioning that who what where is a generalization adopted in most cognitive models of situation awareness, http://danbri.org/words/2006/07/06/153 ocha and sahana happen to be two examples of such a common instantiation pattern - toward common ontologies - i have ample reference to bibliography and literature on this, I can help you elaborate that paragraph, or send you the list of references to published work including my paper at iscram earlier this year - missing people: what do we need there? can I or anyone else help to write something there? cheeers PDM version of the report on the wiki so didn't enter the > miscellaneous typo fixes and grammatical corrections I found. I'm happy to > enter those if I can get access to the current draft. Here are my more > substantive questions and comments. I am happy to make any and all of the > changes I have outlined here if the group agrees with these changes. I'm > sorry if I missed where to input changes directly. > > My comments: > > Does the definition of an emergency need to be included up front? I noticed > in 3.3.2 WHAT, the paragraph before the last set of bullets, this phrase - > "or lack of education facilities". If this qualifies as an emergency in the > context of this document, I think it would be helpful to define that. I'm > not sure that that particular example (lack of education) fits the Phased > Framework Model and the w3 Use Case Model as an emergency example, so I'd > appreciate more clarity on the definition from this group. > In figure 1, in Jurisdiction, is an item for 'Cultural Boundaries' needed? > I'm wondering about tribal structures or other less formal models of > government that might influence jurisdiction. > In 2.2, Phased Framework Model, bullet 2 Preparedness - IMO this topic could > also relate to anticipated but not actual emergencies -- for instance, a > region that experiences frequent typhoons may wish to engage in preparedness > in a general sense, for instance deploying communications and > power-generation devices to strategic locations, without this activity being > for an actual event. This seems to be Preparedness (not Mitigation) but is > not covered in the definition given the word 'actual.' > same area, bullet 4 Recovery - suggest changing the phrase 'including a > review of the effectiveness of the [pre-planning] phases....' - change > 'pre-planning' to 'mitigation and preparedness'. > In figure 2, the Mitigation section seems sparse. For Organizations, would > it be appropriate to add 'Education' and 'Strategic Planning'? For > Activities, how about 'Define Scope of Action" - maybe a better phrase > needed, but to me this means predicting the scope of operations for defined > activities to be better able to act when the Preparedness or Response phases > kick in. > Should 'Returned Evacuees' be 'Returned or Resettled Evacuees'? > Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 are misnumbered - should be 3.1.1 and > 3.1.2. and 3.1.3 respectively. > In Figure 3: > > I saw somewhere a mention of teams. A team could be made up of > unaffiliatedPersons or contactPersons or maybe is part of Organization? Is > it necessary to have a branch off any of these to capture 'team'? > In Emergency - what about individual incidents within an emergency? Say a > dam breach as a result of a flood, and a resulting cholera epidemic -- seems > those two might qualify as 'sub-emergencies'. Is that accounted for in the > model, or does it need to be? > In Resources - what about Supplies, and Expertise, both of which could be > resources but don't seem accounted for. I consider supplies to be different > from equipment. > Can a resource be 'allocated' or 'unallocated' for deployment? > Is 'need' considered a 'capability'? In the 2nd paragraph under 3.3.1 WHO, > it says 'An affectedPerson may need emergency services....' Yet just before > that it says 'Person...provides a set of capabilities...' The implication in > the diagram is that need = capability, but maybe should be clarified? This > also affects 1st paragraph under 3.3.2 WHAT - 'Capabilities represent the > type of activities' - should we add 'or need'? > 3rd paragraph under 3.3.1. WHO says that contactDetails may represent > contact information for any person INVOLVED in an emergency -- but what > about 'AFFECTED by' an emergency? Unless we mean that 'involved in' can also > mean 'affected by' - it wasn't clear to me that both were implied. > Can we explain the connection between the Phased Framework Model and the W3 > Use Case Model? For instance, is the 4-phased approach represented in the > use case model, and how? Also for instance, in the Use Case Model, what is > an affectedPerson BEFORE an emergency? just a Person? That doesn't seem > specific enough. If the Use Case Model will apply to a Mitigation or > Preparation phase, then would there be a 'Population' that must be > understood? Some commentary on the gaps and overlaps between these models > might be good. > In 4. Toward Common Ontologies - I liked paragraph 1 and felt it was a good > introduction to the entire document, setting the stage for the report. > Para 2 - 'Clearly we have shown.....' - have we? I'm not sure we've made > that case. I think we're coming into this effort believing that, but I'm not > sure the case is made in the report. What conclusions are we drawing from > the two frameworks and the two use cases, and the intersection and > challenges, that let's us make this claim? > > I hope these comments make sense and are useful. Thank you for your > leadership, Renato. > > Best regards, > > Rebecca E. Curzon > IBM Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Affairs > Content Manager, On Demand Community; PMP > IBM Corporation, Waltham, MA > Postal address: 73 Pine Street, Concord, MA 01742-3024 > Phone/Fax: (978) 759-0280 (t/l: 364-6420) Skype: rebecca.curzon > Rebecca Curzon/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus rebecca_curzon@us.ibm.com > > IBMers: Join On Demand Community! Click below. > > > > > Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au> > Sent by: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org > > 11/06/2008 07:29 PM > > To > public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org> > cc > Subject > Draft Framework Report > > > > > > > Dear all, the first (editors) Draft of the "Emergency Information > Interoperability Framework" report is now available [1]. > (Note: this will become an HTML file soon - but now is PDF due to some > uploading issues with the W3C site..) > > This report is far from complete and needs a lot of additional content. > > This is now the opportunity to do so! > > We expect to go thru the draft report at the next teleconference [2] > in detail and identify the outstanding sections that need more work, > but also feel free to now email any suggestions and feedback to the > list. > > > Cheers... Renato Iannella > NICTA > > [1] > <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/wiki/images/7/77/XGR-framework-20081106.pdf >> > [2] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/wiki/2008-11-20> > > > -- Paola Di Maio School of IT MFU.ac.th *********************************************
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 09:02:24 UTC