Re: composability/distinctions, substitution/degradation/views, levels of integration/translation [was] Re: 2 types of NIEM models more follow up to meeting discussion

Thanks for boiling them dow, I am sure these ideas wll be useful, maybe
still a bit to granular for our final report (my personal opinion).

I would suggest to have the report revolve around 3-4 functional headings

something like

motivation
*here we can include everything that we know is missing, from the lack of
shared terminology, everythin that needs to be done

role of technology
*here we can list all the issues that explain how we (it people) are getting
involved in er, and how can well thought out technology make a difference to
the real world handling, how can web based schemas increase quality and
efficieny of ER communication

our findings
*what we have done, what we have accomplished, how we have done it,
limitations, shortcomings , open issues etc

proposed work ahead
* our suggestions of what needs to be done
with the final recommendations


PDM



On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 3:42 AM, C H <craighubleyca@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Ultimately it's an audience issue.  This is a final report of a W3 group
> and it is intended to serve to define a mandate for another W3 group.  It is
> accordingly totally unnecessary to wax eloquent about the W3's patent and
> royalty-free policy, explain the benefits of free software or open content,
> or catalogue the various ways pre-Web-2.0 systems tended to fail.
>
> Literally everyone who would ever read anything in or around W3 already
> knows all of that.  So adding a few "bullet points" to a poorly targetted
> outline will simply lose them.
>
> The structure should actually outline the difficult problems that need to
> be solved.  I listed three of those, based in part on issues Gary raised.
>
> Surely there are more?
>
> The list of issues becomes the structure of the report, which is a
> requirements analysis, problem statement for the standard (not the entire
> field of ER/EM).  Since any complex engineering project probably can have no
> more than three major design goals, and the other goals diminish to the
> degree the first three are pursued, probably there's a need to outline them
> and stick to that as the outline of the "final report".  Any backgrounders
> on free software or W3 policy or problems encountered in specific disasters
> or types of disasters should be in appendices.  So the final report has a
> structure that looks something like:
>
> = abstract
>
> = introduction - why the standard is needed
>
> = critical / central goals the final standard must address
> == embody an internally consistent ontology of very few consistent terms
>   that are suitable for use exactly as is in user interfaces and schemas
> == track all assets used in emergency and resilience consistently from the
>   pre-emergency planning and resilience phases to the eventual handoff of
>   responsibilities to local authorities, without prejudice as to
> == track new assets including volunteer or opportunistic/ad-hoc resources,
>   accepting them readily into the same schema as institutional resources
> == treat victims as potential volunteers, avoiding characterizing persons
>   in any way that prevents them from participating in their own recovery
> == embody a robust ontology that correctly differentiates types of assets:
>   individual persons (whatever their role), social relationships (of which
>   fulltime staff relationships are one - and should be explicitly modelled
>   as a form of social relationship between persons), instructions and all
>   explicit communications (factual, corrective, medical, or whatever kind)
>   plus non-human financial, infrastructural/equipment and natural capital.
> == support a test suite that will reliably test compliance and report what
>   level of compatibility a given system has achieved, with what "issues"
>
> = issues not resolved (==) and positions on how to resolve them (===)
> == composability/distinctions
> === rely on international standards relevant to geospatial/time information
> == substitution/degradation/views
> === degrade gracefully under pressure and partial information, allowing the
>   minimal implementations to defer to maximal implementations dynamically,
>   so that even severe problems with data consistency become simple delays
>   until accurate data can be verified using a more elaborate human process
> == levels of integration/translation/compliance
> === be implementable in its minimal form on extremely low cost mobile
>    devices, and available as a free software reference implementation
> === in its ordinary form, be implementable on high-end robust mobile
>    devices, and as a variety of services supported by commercial parties,
>    all of which cooperate using a common open set of data standards
> === in its maximal form, coordinate and translate between legacy and other
>    incompatible systems, acting as a central clearinghouse for all other
>    implementations and permitting them to more easily cooperate as peers
>
> = other constraints that systems built on the final standard must satisfy
> == support international human rights standards including privacy and anti-
>   discrimination standards, in particular explicit protection of women in
>   vulnerable situations;  this may require anonymizing or aggregating data
> == integrate well with other W3, IETF, IEEE standards using common terms
> == royalty-free status with obligation to re-integrate improvements ("share
>   alike", "open content", "free software") for benefit of all other users
>   and beneficiaries
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************

Looking for champions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogKUx_q7ig&feature=related


Vocamp Ibiza  Vocamp.org
15-16 April

Advances in semantic computing,
Book Chapter Proposals Accepted
http://www.tmrfindia.org/eseries/cfc-sc.html

Taxonomy of fundamental Ontology
http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=77614


IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)

i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria.
www.i-semantics.tugraz.at

SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html
**************************************************
Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand