RE: em shared vocabulary

Mandana,
please find attached my suggested model for the notion of 'resource'. Note 
that the current model formally means that every Person, Fund, and 
Equipment is a Resource, which is false. 


Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,

Guido Vetere
Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
-----------------------
IBM Italia S.p.A.
via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome, 
Italy
-----------------------
mail:     gvetere@it.ibm.com
phone: +39 06 59662137
mobile: +39 335 7454658





"Mandana" <mandanas@ece.ubc.ca> 
Sent by: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org
26/03/2009 19.48

To
<paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT
cc
"'public-xg-eiif'" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Subject
RE: em shared vocabulary






Model and the description were modified a while back (attached). Renato is 
going to incorporate them in the draft for your review. ?Resource? is 
modeled  a bit differently now. See if it better serves the prupose.
Regards,
Mandana
 
 
From: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org] 
On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:19 AM
To: Guido Vetere
Cc: public-xg-eiif
Subject: Re: em shared vocabulary
 

Thanks a lot Guido

what I am trying to do here (purely from my vocabulary viewpoint) is to 
reconcile the ontological process  aimed to conceptualize/abstract the  EM 
scenarios (which are very important, and so far DOLCE seems to have done 
very well), with the real world expectation fo someone who is bleeding to 
death and needs unambiguous commitment of a specific resource NOW! 

>From  that point of view , 'Service as a ?promise?, i.e., roughly, a 
description of a commitment'  may not be enough, as would expect 'an 
ambulance service to be delivered within the shoftest possible time after 
the 999 call, and not roughly whenever it becomes available, for example. 

Capisci?

Not that I have a clue as to how to do that..... but at least we are 
making a start eh?

more questions follow

PDM

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote:

Paola, as I said, I would model Resource as a Relational role. 
Syntactically, it could be an OWL Property whose domain is Service 
(whatever it is) and whose range is defined on the union of Person and 
Artefact (and Funds?). Of course, if you want, you can also draw a 
specific Class to represent that range, however this would have no formal 
import. 
As for Service, please consider that the idea of splitting the class 
(concrete process and its description) is mine, and has nothing to do with 
DOLCE itself. By the way, I was with Nicola Guarino at a conference last 
week; he said that a Service is a ?promise?, i.e., roughly, a description 
of a commitment. 

Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,

Guido Vetere
Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
-----------------------
IBM Italia S.p.A.
via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome, 
Italy
-----------------------
mail:     gvetere@it.ibm.com
phone: +39 06 59662137
mobile: +39 335 7454658




paola.dimaio@gmail.com 
Sent by: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org 
26/03/2009 17.35 


To
public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org> 
cc

Subject
Re: em shared vocabulary
 








Just to reiterate this point below  (rubbing it in actually)
that the relationship between capability and resource is inextricable in 
operations

I get an excerpt from one of our current working documents pasted below, 
which seems to be in contradiction with the
DOLCE  analysis (contained in the same document)

in the WHO section it says: 

    * Capability Properties: WorkingSector (to specify the nature of 
services that can be provided), resource
    * Relationship with: Resource

Resource represents tangible items and people that are used to respond to 
an incident.

    * Resource Properties: Equipment (vehicles, communication facilities, 
etc.), People (human force), Fund (any financial support), Supplies
    * Relationship with: locationInformation (to trace the resources in 
emergency operations)






On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:12 PM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote: 
I am finally jotting down some definitions of the terms used in the 
framework document/diagram, to append to the final report, and as the 
basis for shared vocabulary work among different teams. I face a series of 
disparate and difficult issues, I may follow up with a few emails to 
request inputs on specifics

This is forcing me to take a closer look at the latest version of the 
draft, 
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/XGR-framework-20090220/

and I have some questions/comments that come up

 I am looking at some of the notes regarding the DOLCE conceptualization 
of our framework, and I wonder how much of these notes should be reflected 
in our vocabulary, and how much should not be (whereby the description of 
the conceptualization is not relevant to the actual meaning of the term)

for example


re. DOLCE definitions 
ServiceService, in a concrete sense, can be seen as a Process, i.e. a 
perdurant (event) whose temporal parts may have different qualities (e.g. 
agreement, delivery, and conclusion). By looking at the attributes of the 
W3 class, however, it seems that the concept aims at modelling abstract 
and informative qualities such as Title and Description. To represent both 
informative properties and spatial-temporal ones under DOLCE?s 
conceptualization, Service might be split in two different classes: 
?ServiceDescription? (InformationObject) and ?ServiceProcess? representing 
the concrete processes of service?s execution. 

I dont understand what ;'service' stands for , can someone provide some 
examples?  for me service is the provision of a resource, or a capability
is that something else?  is it intended as 'emergency service is the 
provision of emergency supplies?'


Capability 
Capability is used in W3 for representing the kind of actions Persons and 
Organization should be able to perform. This should be represented in 
DOLCE by an AbstractQuality (qualities inherent in non-physical endurants) 
whose value should range over a suitable abstract region, to be 
introduced. According to DOLCE, however, this would limit the ascription 
of (instances of) this class to non-physical endurants. 
I dont' know about DOLCE, but capability is the ability to provide 
resource (be it material supply or service , and which requires resources 
and infrastructure) 
Capability is directly related to resource availability, (not sure what 
you mean by 'abstract' here) 
cf.: 
Originally a military term which includes the aspects of personnel, 
equipment, training, planning and operational doctrine. Now used to mean a 
demonstrable capacity or ability to respond to and recover from a 
particular threat or hazard.
www.preparingforemergencies.gov.uk/more_info/glossary.shtm 

Resource 
It is not immediately clear what Resource could be in terms of DOLCE 
categories. The class looks like the union of three other classes 
Equipment, People, and Fund. Intuitively, Resource stands for any concrete 
thing that can be instrumental to the process of delivering a Service. It 
is questionable, however, whether a specific class is really needed here. 
Again, I dont know from the ontologist viewpoint, but from the operational 
viewpoint, resource is essential to the supply process, 
I cannot see how we can get away with modelling/representing it 
he 'categorization' of resources depends on the approach, they can be 
grouped according to the functional/operational role (say medical resource 
versus transport)  or material (medicine, food,) vs  intangible (know how, 
skills, knowledge, experience, competence) and so on, 
But it needs to be represented in any lexical, semantic and ontological 
schema that revolves around the supply of resources  (or please explain 
otherwise) 
cheers 
PDM 




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




IBM Italia S.p.A.
Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) 
Cap. Soc. euro 400.001.359
C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
Società soggetta all?attività di direzione e coordinamento di 
International Business Machines Corporation

(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise 
above)



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

[attachment "W3 Model Version 1 8.jpg" deleted by Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM] 
[attachment "W3 Model Description v2.doc" deleted by Guido 
Vetere/Italy/IBM] 


IBM Italia S.p.A.
Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) 
Cap. Soc. euro 400.001.359
C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
Società soggetta all?attività di direzione e coordinamento di 
International Business Machines Corporation

(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise 
above)