EmergencyResponseOntologyApplication/Prep

Emergency Response Ontology Application Discussion Session Preparation Page:    (PTZ)

Format and Initial Agenda Questions    (S3P)

Problem Statement:    (S7Z)

The world has changed since 9/11, Indonesian tsunamis and Katrina/Rita demonstrate the need for improved Decision Support Systems.    (S8J)

• Among these changes:    (S8F)
  • Information Sharing is no longer optional, from radio frequencies to secure, trusted networks, and more/improved ISACs are imperative;    (S8G)
  • Recognizing Fail-Points needs to be completely, unconditionally, accepted instead of avoided;    (S8H)
  • Interoperability and SOA must rise above both the current level of apparent marketing acceptance and exploitation with vendor-specific packaging, and adhere to increasing levels of inter-vendor interoperability based on standard vocabularies and data models expressed in XML and RDF-OWL;    (S8I)
  • Recognizing Fail-Points and achieving interoperability must be done in highly adaptable, SCALABLE methodologies.    (S82)

Questions for the Panel to consider:    (S83)

• 1. How can we provide improved decision support through ontologies in both Emergency Response Management and Health Informatics in ways that are measurably scalable?    (S84)
  • Specifically, how can we address the problems presented by exploding injury/illness specifications such as HL7 v.3 as well as the enormous increase in system-wide data inputs that will accompany the inevitable uptake of HIT.    (S86)
  • One should not expect a single solution. Different communities and situations will have different criteria and metrics for quality and scalability, but there can be some common infrastructure that the solutions can share.    (SCZ)
• 2. How can we implement any of the lessons learned from Dr. Brailer's guided prototyping of a Nationwide Health Information Network for an ERMS ?    (S87)
  • Can we specifically require that the values underpinning NHIN, such as eliminating vendor-specific lock-ins, ensuring that urban, rural and exurban communities can develop operational interoperability while maintaining the best fit to their scales?    (S9N)
  • Public, Private, Combined Funding?    (S89)

• 3. Can we realistically include the integration of Sensor-based alerting and the concepts inherent in oBIX as well as EDXL to Risk-Analysis-based and Bayesian Belief Networks in the growing GIG environment?    (S8A)
  • Public, Private, Combined Funding?    (S9O)
  • Different scales will have different solutions. Can the Grants and Research program officers be informed of the business values from requiring common re-usable components that meet OWL-DL like standards?    (SD0)
• 4. How do we move toward an explicit process modeling, using, for instance, the Taxo-Thesaurus methodology and the results of ongoing explorations within the Ontolog Forum of developing evaluation criteria for rating ontologies and connecting ontologies and databases in ways that facilitate the development of improved Decision Support Systems?    (S8B)

NOTE: We have a total of 2 hours, and typically 1 to 1.5 hour for all the panelists' presentations:    (S9P)

    (S4H)

• Panel of 4 members, each with 4-6 slides and 5-10 minutes to present (50-75 minutes)    (S3R)
  • Professor Ken Baclawski [ confirmed ]    (S3S)
  • Rex Brooks: [ confirmed ]    (S3T)
  • Michelle Raymond: [ confirmed ]    (S3V)
  • Bob Smith: [ confirmed ]    (S3W)

• Panel Discussion (about 15 minutes)    (S4I)

• Symposium attendee's question and answer session (about 35 minutes)    (S4J)
  • Please NOTE: Panel members should remain on the phone to answer questions directed to them    (S4K)

• Glossary link about here ERHIGlossary    (PVB)

(-- BobSmith RexBrooks / 2006.12.30 10:30am)    (PWT)