Elysa et al.,
I reviewed the document in the mindset that one day NOAA/NWS might
be able to use this (just like we could use SitRep) for storm
reporting. We actually have an extensive trained volunteer storm
spotter network called SKYWARN.
We'd want to be able to report things like down trees and power
lines, hail size, wind speed, structural damage, injuries,
fatalities, intensity of precipitation, precipitation amounts,
tsunami heights, etc. With that in mind, I have a few questions and
thoughts and welcome anyone to chime in.
- Does the EVENT ID get re-used for additional reports (i.e., EMSI
messages) or does it change with every message?
- Can we only provide one storm report in each EMSI message or can
we somehow provide multiple reports in the same message without
resorting to the use of FREETEXT?
- Use of CERTAINTY would be helpful for predictions of extreme
weather, but wouldn't we be providing that information in CAP?
- How would we code the intensity of precipitation, such as heavy
rain or heavy snow? I see EGEO WEATHER of RAIN and SNOW, but no way
to convey intensity information. Want to avoid FREETEXT and
resulting language/translation issues.
- How would we convey tsunami wave heights? Want to avoid FREETEXT
and resulting language/translation issues.
- How would we convey snow amounts? Want to avoid FREETEXT and
resulting language/translation issues.
- How would we convey hail size? Want to avoid FREETEXT and
resulting language/translation issues.
- I didn't see any codes that could be used to convey trees or power
lines down. Maybe we need TREES and PWRLNS.
Thoughts anyone?
Mike
On 3/5/2013 8:38 AM, Elysa Jones wrote:
Friends,
ISO 223 has submitted a draft for comment
of their message structure for information exchange between
emergency management organizations. It includes a packaged
situation awareness component and is quite far along in their
process. I appreciate that Dennis Gusty provided this to us
as we may not have otherwise been made aware. The comment
request says comments are due by 3/6 – tomorrow! However
there is one place in the internal document that says 3/8 and
Denis said we may have a little longer. The two documents are
posted in the EM-TC repository in the Contributions Folder for
your review.
This is a bit frustrating for me as we
responded very clearly to ISO in October of 2010 that we had a
work in progress (Situation Reporting) when they publicly
requested information on this work item. The letter we sent
was agreed to by our EM-TC as balloted 26 Oct 2010 and can be
reviewed at https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/download.php/39892/ISO%20Response.doc.
I am copying Jamie Clark also who is our
liaison with ISO. As I reported in my HL7 meeting report, I
spent time with the ISO TC215 Secretariat Lisa Spellman as we
were panellists on the Standards Panel at the meeting. She
was very interested in our real-world work uniting emergency
response to health care with TEP. She spent time with me
later to review the EDXL standards development process. Lisa
is also the US TAG Administrator. I intend to reach out to
her as well regarding this report. Perhaps our letter did not
get to the right people? Perhaps ignored? We have long
talked about how important it is to have a representative on
the ISO/TC223 but we have not had the bandwidth.
Please post any thoughts or comments as a
reply to this email. After I’ve heard from you, we will
determine if a special meeting is in order to discuss or
whether we should respond. Hopefully we will also have
guidance from OASIS as well.
Thanks,
Elysa Jones, Chair
OASIS EM-TC
--
Mike Gerber
NOAA/National Weather Service
Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services
301-713-0090 x170
Mike.Gerber@noaa.gov
|