OASIS Emergency Management TC

  • 1.  ISO-TC223 Report 22351

    Posted 03-05-2013 13:39
    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  


  • 2.  Re: [emergency] ISO-TC223 Report 22351

    Posted 03-05-2013 16:40
    Elysa, I missed the mention of the documents having been uploaded to Contributions. My bad. Rex On 3/5/2013 5:38 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   -- Rex Brooks GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Phone: 510-898-0670


  • 3.  Re: ISO-TC223 Report 22351

    Posted 03-05-2013 17:43
    In the short term, we should send a note indicating that the TC has comments during 6th March, whether or not the comments are in it. I will work with Elysa to suggest a form for that. Then individuals (or if the TC acts, the TC) will want to get those comments indeed out. Needless to say, measures tones always are called for. Perhaps along with a copy of that 2010 communication, if it is apposite? Then, longer-term, I too am curious why we did not know of the review date. Perhaps we need more of a roster liaison presence on TC223? All it usually takes is someone willing to join a mail list, and nominated by us. I will confer with Elysa. Kind regards Jamie James Bryce Clark, General Counsel OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark www.identi.ca/JamieXML www.twitter.com/JamieXML http://t.sina.cn/jamiexml http://www.slideshare.net/jamiexml http://facebook.com/oasis.open On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Elysa Jones <elysajones@yahoo.com> 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 > >


  • 4.  Re: [emergency] ISO-TC223 Report 22351

    Posted 03-05-2013 18:22
    Hi Again Elysa, Now that I have the document in pdf form (required a bit of updating my various copies of Adobe Reader once I finally got it downloaded correctly), it is virtually the same as the TSO I have commented on previously. Briefly: the codelist - part 2 of TSO is retained, so we can use that set as ValueLists for working with countries that adopt the use of the ISO Standard. The message structure as previously contained in TSO is retained. In my opinion that was an unfortunate attempt to create a one-size-fits-all emergency message. However, it is usable to share information in a fairly immediate way without much care for later uses of that information. The problem with that is that tracking things like resources, casualties, displaced people will be more of a challenge without the kind of specification-per-function found in EDXL. Simply attaching messageIDs and messageRefs won't help with the inevitable audit trail needed to assess effectiveness and recover costs once the incident has been responded to and mitigated to the point that resources are returning to their original owners. Needless to say, after action reports will likely rely on anecdotes without the Statistics being automatically collected to back up the Analytics. Of course, brilliant application writers can do all that, eventually. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it can be done the way our specs allow, and almost require. Building flexible, semantically coordinated databases is likely to be difficult compared to the way EDXL works. However, all that will require quite a bit of work regardless of which specs are written to. I haven't had time to check on how the codelists match up to previous versions, but using them within EDXL should not be a difficult problem. I probably won't have time to fill out a comment form today, but may be able to do that tomorrow. Best Regards, Rex On 3/5/2013 5:38 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   -- Rex Brooks GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Phone: 510-898-0670


  • 5.  Re: [emergency] ISO-TC223 Report 22351

    Posted 03-18-2013 17:45
    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


  • 6.  Re: [emergency] ISO-TC223 Report 22351

    Posted 03-21-2013 19:55
      |   view attached
    Mike et al., I wanted to let you all know that some of the specific requirements mentioned below are relevant to the discussions on extensions and constraints in the Emergency Management Reference Information Model(EM-RIM SC), and I have included that list to the addressees for this message. I address issues inline. On 3/18/2013 10:44 AM, Mike Gerber wrote: 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? In EDXL-SitRep the equivalent element is IncidentID and it is applied to all messages that relate to that incident.   - 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? You can include as many separate EDXL messages as you want, for instance EDXL-SitRep messages such as FieldObservation Report, CasualtyAndIlnessReport and EDXL-RM messages such as EDXLRequestResource and EDXLReportResourceDeploymentStatus relating to the same or different incidents by using the EDXL-DistributionElement v2.0 as the wrapper for the set of individual messages contained in the message. - Use of CERTAINTY would be helpful for predictions of extreme weather, but wouldn't we be providing that information in CAP? Certainty, along with Urgency and Severity are currently available in the next versions of EDXL-DE and can be applied to the individual messages within a set, in addition to CAP alerts where they are already available. We are currently working on advice and guidance for all of our standard messages. Without going into detail values for certainty, urgency and severity, we are working on advice for these elements wherever they occur in EDXL communications. - 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.  You can use your own, or any other list of intensity values in a ValueList, but it is wise to take some time and learn the extension mechanisms of the EDXL suite. This can be done in a couple of different ways and if you are sending the message to a particular jurisdiction that uses a different ValueList you should work with that jurisdiction to clarify which lists of values you both want to use. I am attaching the CEN WORKSHOP AGREEMENT---CWA 15931-2---February 2009 ICS 13.200        English version Disaster and emergency management - Shared situation awareness - Part 2: Codes for the message structure In pages 11-14 You will find the codelists for 3.2.2/EVENT/EGEO/WEATHER with rain and precip codelists from the Tactical Situation Object standard, with the caveat that this is out of date, in that it predates current work on ISO-TC223-WG3_NO923_ISO_DTR_22351_E (2). However it is very close to the same and I doubt that much will need to be done to adapt the final set of codelists into any work you or we conduct despite the fact that it is out of date. These codelists are a clear example of what we mean by a ValueList. However I have not actually worked with this resource beyond beyond including it  in the ontology of the EDXL suite of standards that I am compiling. As you will see, while it does contain quite a bit of units-of-measure, it leaves a lot of room for improvement.  However, because it addresses the language hurdles of Europe in the quest for interoperability, I feel confident we can make good use of it. Unfortunately, I don't think it actually covers the measurement standards you are seeking wrt snow. - How would we convey tsunami wave heights? Want to avoid FREETEXT and resulting language/translation issues This is another set of categories in which you can specify height/volume units of measurement for yourselves or within the groups of jurisdictions with which you work. .  - How would we convey snow amounts? Want to avoid FREETEXT and resulting language/translation issues.  Same as above. This allows great flexibility but if it comes at the cost of conflicting applications instead of increasing interoperability, you will need to make choices. If there are well-defined lists of values, I would suggest using them, for these WeatherEffects, are always paired with WeatherConcerns in the EDXL-SitRep specification. - How would we convey hail size? Want to avoid FREETEXT and resulting language/translation issues. In this case, I would advise using the NWS Hail Size Chart http://www.erh.noaa.gov/aly/Severe/HailSize_Chart.htm For an example of a list and its values as well as its url I copy this chart here: Hail Size Chart Hail Diameter Size Description 1/4 Pea 1/2 Plain M&M 3/4 Penny 7/8 Nickel 1 (severe) Quarter 1 1/4 Half Dollar 1 1/2 Ping Pong Ball / Walnut 1 3/4 Golf Ball 2 Hen Egg / Lime 2 1/2 Tennis Ball 2 3/4 Baseball 3 Teacup / Large Apple 4 Softball 4 1/2 Grapefruit 4 3/4 - 5 Computer CD-DVD Same as above. If I rec   - I didn't see any codes that could be used to convey trees or power lines in any particular condition, e.g. down. Maybe we need TREES and PWRLNS. We'd all love to see a site devoted to a registry of sites providing ValueLists to help make the use of these values within interoperable services easily usable within a SOA Ecosystem. Thoughts anyone? Our Canadian friends have made some great steps in this direction, and we are incorporating their work where possible. I'm working on such an emergency management domain ontology that includes the ISO work. Mike Thanks for bringing this up, Rex Brooks P.S. I hope that any errors in my reply will be quickly discovered and corrected. 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 -- Rex Brooks GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Phone: 510-898-0670 Attachment: CWA_15931-2.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document

    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    CWA_15931-2.pdf   591 KB 1 version