OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

Re: [emergency] EDXL Target Areas for device coded recipients

  • 1.  Re: [emergency] EDXL Target Areas for device coded recipients

    Posted 05-25-2005 13:44
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL Target Areas for device coded recipients


    Um... there are a couple of issues here, I think.  One has to do with  
    whether we need an <areaDescription> element to hold a descriptive  
    string. It was omitted until now for lack of anyone asking for it,  
    and I'd certainly support adding it so long as it's useful.
    
    The other, more complicated issue has to do with the legacy of system- 
    specific codes used as a shorthand for geospatial targeting.  The  
    mildest case of this, of course, is the extended-FIPS codes used in  
    EAS.  At least those refer to a well-known national standard (at  
    least, until we get down to that optional sub-county division)... but  
    they still superimpose artificial, in this case political, boundaries  
    on our depictions of hazards and events.
    
    Local alerting zones, IPZs and other site-specific schemes are even  
    more problematic, since it's impractical for every receiving device  
    and/or message routing system to maintain current look-ups for every  
    such system everywhere.  Still, the use of such approximations...  
    originally devised to accommodate the limited resolution of earlier  
    targeting technologies... frequently has gotten written into  
    procedures and regulations, thus freezing them in bureaucratic amber.
    
    So I think our approach ought to be... and I believe this is what  
    everyone is saying... that where administratively-designated zones  
    are familiar to the audience they should be included as part of a  
    target-area description, basically as a backward-compatibility  
    measure... but that warning originators should (at least) perform a  
    one-time computation of equivalent geospatial descriptions (polygons  
    or circles) and provide those as the prescriptive geospatial targeting.
    
    That way, as more precise targeting becomes possible, it won't be  
    impeded by the legacy fixed-zone technique.  And it's in line with  
    our discouragement of the use of geocodes alone in CAP.
    
    - Art
    
    
    On May 24, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Aymond, Patti wrote:
    
    > I agree with Kon. It should be in the EDXL Distribution, as well.
    >
    > Patti
    >
    > Patti Iles Aymond, PhD
    > Senior Scientist
    > Bioterrorism Preparedness & Response
    >
    > Innovative Emergency Management, Inc.
    > Managing Risk in a Complex World
    >
    > 8555 United Plaza Blvd.   Suite 100
    > Baton Rouge, LA 70809
    > (225) 952-8228 (phone)
    > (225) 952-8122 (fax)
    >
    >