RE: [emergency-msg] RM elements - Ross/Jon Skeels

["Aymond, Patti" <Patti.Aymond@iem.com>]

I agree with Renato, but I think we need more than two roles:

 

• producer - the manufacturer or provider
• distributor - the seller or warehouse manager
• dispatcher - the shipping/receiving coordinator (the receiving coordinator for returned resources)
• shipper - the shipping/transportation responsible party
• procurer - the purchaser (who's paying the bill)
• acquirer - the agency/organization that is taking ownership/responsibility/control of the resource
• receiver - the receiving/shipping coordinator (the shipping coordinator for returned resources)
• consumer - the person/unit/organization that utilizes the resource
• others...?

For example, the distributor may send the procurer contact info for the producer, distributor, dispatcher, and shipper, and the procurer may send the distributor contact info for the procurer, acquirer, receiver, and consumer.

 

Patti

---

From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au]
Sent: Sun 8/27/2006 11:57 PM
To: Aymond, Patti; Tim Grapes
Cc: Emergency_Mgt_Msg_SC
Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] RM elements - Ross/Jon Skeels

On 26 Aug 2006, at 02:24, Aymond, Patti wrote:

Looking at this I realize that we don't have elements that identify the requestor and the provider. I think we need to add that distinction. I see the general "ContactInfo" as contact information relating to the sender of the message, which may not be the requestor of the resource or the provider of the resource. One thought is to add a "ContactType" element in "ContactInfo" that can have the values "MessageSender", "Resource Requester", or "ResourceProvider" - or something like that.

We should define two roles within the RM structures.

1 - Resource Consumers - those that request and need resources

2 - Resource Distributors - those that have resources, or have access to them, or manage them for others, and can provide/dispatch resources (to Resource Consumers)

My assumption has been that the ContactInformation is always the sender of the resource message, and hence in some cases

it is the RC and others the RD - those distinction simply depends on the message type.

So the question is:  Do we need more roles than these two?

For example, do we need a "Resource Owner" who maybe different than the RD - for example: Owning/HomeDispatch/HomeUnit

If yes, then we need some Ref Model changes.

If no, then we don't need this info - we assume that the RD is responsible for all aspects of the Resource management.

(In this case, if the HomeDispatch is "Collins Dispatch Center" then this would only appear in one of the arrival/departure Locations elements, as this is the important bit of information...)

I think the important design-philosophy is that we are not trying to replicate an entire back-end resource management/logistics system, but the interoperability between resource consumer/distributor.

Cheers...  Renato Iannella

National ICT Australia (NICTA)

IEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR NOTICE:
http://www.ieminc.com/e_mail_confidentiality_notice.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.