Re: Draft Framework Report

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