Re: [emergency] Cross Standard Definition of Incident Types

["Carl Reed" <creed@opengis.org>]

Just a thought. Rather than focus entirely on content standards, there are
other possible (and proven) avenues to explore. There are available
standards that when implemented support near real time interoperability and
use multiple network accessible content resources independent of content
format and technology implementation. There is also work being done on
mechanisms for mapping disparate content models into a common representation
that can then be used by the client applications. There are numerous reasons
for considered a balanced approach. One is that the client applications -and
hence the users - can be protected from changes in the underlying content,
technologies, and so forth. A really big one is that many local
jurisdictions will fight very hard anything that requires them to change
their existing (and operational) content models. This is a major issue in
the geospatial industry.

As much of the information required by first responders is held in existing
databases (transportation, water system, building exits, school locations,
and so forth) or available through some form of sensor web (wind speed and
direction, traffic volumes, etc.) we also need to insure that such
information is made available as quickly and as easily as possible and at a
reasonable cost.

Carl Reed
OGC

----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Wyke <emtc@nc.rr.com>
To: Tom Merkle <TMerkle@capwin.org>
Cc: IF SC <emergency-if@lists.oasis-open.org>; Emergency Management TC
<emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: [emergency] Cross Standard Definition of Incident Types


> On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 13:46, Tom Merkle wrote:
> > Allen:
> > I see many initiatives occurring in developing data standards for the
> > first responders, public health, and transportation areas. In the
> > tactical approach we can leverage existing work in some of the areas and
> > create standards where the gaps occur. The major problem with this
> > approach is trying to keep all inputs synchronized when a change occurs.
>
> Exactly - this is dead on what the EM TC has signed up for and is doing.
> Our Infrastructure Framework SC is responsible for identifying and
> "mapping" the existing work in a manner we can leverage, which allows
> the TC to then focus on the gaps. I also completely agree with the major
> problem, and I can assure you the Chair of the IF SC is fully aware of
> that challenge.
>
> > A well defined parent child structure must be in place to help provide
> > an impact analysis diagram so all areas impacted may understand the
> > proposed change.
>
> You should hook up with the IF SC Chair, Rick Carlton - this is his
> baby. We are trying to stay at a level where we can not necessarily
> solve all the world's problems, but rather improve the situation without
> causing problems. I will defer to Rick for a more thorough description
> of his focus. He only let's me talk so much :)
>
> > The strategic approach would be to gather all of the various standards
> > into an umbrella standard that mandates the impact analysis and change
> > management processes. This would provide the "national level" standard
> > which is comprised from various standard developing organizations that
> > provide their expertise in specific areas.
> > Just some thoughts.
>
> And certainly all good ones!
>
> > Tom
> >
> > --Original Message--
> > From: Allen Wyke [mailto:emtc@nc.rr.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:35 PM
> > To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [emergency] Cross Standard Definition of Incident Types
> >
> >
> > This email is in regards to a question I asked in the agenda of the 7/1
> > call
> > (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency/200307/msg00000.html).
> >
> > Here is what I wrote in that original email:
> >
> > <snip>
> > a recent thread within the MSG SC (several messages - starts with
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-msg/200306/msg00024.html)
> > got my gears turning and I wanted to throw something out to the group
> > and get feedback. In a nutshell, do we think we will use incident types
> > across several/all of our standards? If so, should we define those
> > external to any one standard as part of its own data dictionary? That
> > way each of our standards could use it as they need/see fit. Note that I
> > do not want to slow or disrupt CAP with this question, so the "right"
> > answer might be two pronged (short-term vs. long-term). Art had some
> > good comments/thoughts on why we need to be VERY careful to even
> > CONSIDER this, so this is not by any means a definite. Art, can you pull
> > together notes from that email and reply to this message at some point
> > with your thoughts? </snip>
> >
> > Specifically, I was wondering if it made sense for us to standardize,
> > either by our own creation or through adoption, of various incident
> > types. Right now, for instance, CAP specifies some incident types. We do
> > not want to disrupt or slow down CAP, but we may want to think broader
> > about incident definitions for CAP 1.1/2.0 and other/future EM TC
> > standards.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> --
> R. Allen Wyke
> Chair, Emergency Management TC
> emtc@nc.rr.com
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
>
>
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgro
up.php
>