D9.1. Standardisation - EPISECC · Example of the comparison: Ambulance _ vs ^Emergency Services _...
Transcript of D9.1. Standardisation - EPISECC · Example of the comparison: Ambulance _ vs ^Emergency Services _...
D9.1. – Standardisation
Grant agreement number: 607078 Date of deliverable: 2017-30-09
Date of project start: 2014-06-01 Date of submission: 2017-27-10
Duration of project: 41 months Deliverable approved by: UNIST, DLR
Lead Beneficiary: AIT
Contributing Beneficiaries: IES, PSCE, UNIST
Establish Pan-European Information Space to Enhance seCurity of Citizens
Executive Summary
This deliverable reports on the activities taken by the project partners in order to bring the results of
the EPISECC project into standardisation. For this purpose, the outcomes of the EPISECC project were
examined on their suitability for exploitation by standardisation. The assessments provided by the
Deliverable 9.2 were taken as basis of this analysis. It turned out that specific aspects of the EPISECC
Taxonomy as well as the concept of the common information space have the best potential for
standardisation activities (chapter 2.2).
In parallel, the project partners got in touch with relevant European standardisation organisations. As
most promising organisations CEN TC391 “Societal and Citizen Security”, ETSI, 3GPP and OASIS were
identified. Chapter 2.3 of this deliverable reports on the cooperation activities of the EPISECC team
as well as of the description of the organisations, which are potentially relevant for the purposes of
EPISECC.
We found out that the CEN TC 391 provided the best possibilities to bring outcomes of EPISECC into
standardisation. CEN offers a multitude of tools for such purposes. A relatively new approach is the
CEN Workshop Agreement providing a variety of degrees of freedom compared to other approaches
such as a New Work Item Proposal for standards. It is open to the participation for anyone, has no
geographical limit on participation and is comparatively fast and flexible. The report arising from a
CEN Workshop Agreement does not have the status of a standard and involves no obligations on
national level. Considering the time limitations of a European research project, the EPISECC team
launched a CWA on terminologies in crisis and disaster management supported by CEN TC 391.
This initiative was not only driven by EPISECC, but it was also supported by the FP7 projects
SecInCore, SECTOR and ConCorde. It is also a major outcome of the long-lasting cooperation of the
interoperability projects EPISECC, SEcInCore, SECTOR and Redirnet. Due to the open structure of a
CEN Workshop several partners not being member of one of the above-mentioned projects such as
the French Ministry of Environment, Transport and Energy or the Goethe University Frankfurt
supported the initiative as well. The German Standardisation Organisation (DIN) took over the
position of secretariat of the action.
The basic idea of the CEN Workshop is to provide a thesaurus on international terminologies applied
in crisis and disaster management. The first main objective is to give to practitioners and other
stakeholders the possibility to see at a glance different definitions from the same terms taken from
the relevant terminologies which are applied nowadays. Having such an opportunity available, it can
be expected that the degree of mutual misunderstanding in cross-border disaster management will
decrease in long terms. The intention of the CEN Workshop is neither to develop an own terminology
nor to judge the quality of any terminology. Actually, the initiative aims at establishing a common
understanding of concepts by providing their terms and specific definitions from different sources
and thereby considering different characteristics from various countries or types of organisations.
The initiative goes beyond heuristic comparisons of terminologies. Therefore, the second objective is
to provide methods for systematic analysis on the degree of semantic similarities between concepts
having same terms. In order to make such analysis possible, guiding questions to analyse concepts’
definitions such as type of organisation involved, range of escalation of an event or scenario of
application of a term (e.g. meteorological disaster) with multiple choice selections were developed
making comparisons of key parameters of definitions possible. In addition, an indicator to quantify
the degree of similarity of definitions was set up. Moreover, a methodology to analyse the
relatedness of the context (e.g. defined in the scope of a document) of terminologies was established
as well. Several examples of analysis were undertaken and reported. The outcome of the CEN
Workshop initiative is given in chapter 4 as well as the annexes of this deliverable.
Taking the duration of standardisation activities into account, it becomes evident that
standardisation activities on semantic and syntactical interoperability beyond the end of EPISECC
need to take place. Chapter 5 of deliverable 9.1 gives an overview on these activities. On the one
hand, a second stage of the CEN Workshop Agreement is currently initiated allowing extension of the
database of terminologies among other goals. This second stage will be supported by the FP7 project
DRIVER+. On the other hand, looking at the second outcome of the EPISECC project suitable for
standardisation, it was so far not possible to identify ongoing standardisation suitable activities to
bring the interoperability concepts to standardisation. EPISECC started therefore a feasibility
assessment of a standard on interoperability in crisis and disaster management supported by the
Dutch and German standardisation organisations (NED and DIN). For this purpose, EPISECC uses the
ResiStand Assessment Framework (RAF) recently provided by the H2020 project ResiStand.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |4
www.episecc.eu
Table of Content
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 6
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 7
List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 8
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10
2. The EPISECC project....................................................................................................................... 10
2.1. Overview of the project ......................................................................................................... 10
2.2. EPISECC results relevant for standardisation ......................................................................... 13
2.3. Standardisation bodies approached by the EPISECC team .................................................... 14
2.3.1. ETSI ................................................................................................................................ 14
2.3.2. CEN ................................................................................................................................ 15
2.3.2.1. Structure and activities of CEN TC 391 .......................................................................... 15
2.3.2.2. Initiative supported by CEN TC 391 to bring EPISECC initiative to standardisation ...... 17
2.3.3. 3GPP .............................................................................................................................. 17
2.4. Other activities ....................................................................................................................... 18
3. Standardisation activities in the frame of EPISECC ....................................................................... 20
3.1. CEN Workshop on terminologies in crisis and disaster management ................................... 20
3.1.1. The CEN Workshop Agreement approach ..................................................................... 20
3.1.2. The CWA initiative on terminologies in crisis and disaster management ..................... 21
3.1.3. The CWA partners ......................................................................................................... 22
4. The first stage results of the CEN Workshop initiative .................................................................. 23
4.1. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 23
4.2. Quality frame for generating and selecting definitions ......................................................... 26
4.3. Context and definition analyses............................................................................................. 27
4.4. Exemplary outputs on analyses of context and definitions ................................................... 30
5. Further activities beyond the end of EPISECC ............................................................................... 30
5.1. Standardisation activities beyond the EPISECC horizon ........................................................ 30
5.2. The CWA on terminologies in crisis and disaster management – stage 2 ............................. 31
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |5
www.episecc.eu
5.3. Assessment of the feasibility of a standard on interoperability in crisis and disaster
management ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Annex A – Methodology specification and preparation (A1) ........................................................... 33
Annex B – Example comparisons of terms and sources ................................................................... 37
Example comparison “Emergency Management” ................................................................................ 37
Example of the comparison for the term “Hazard” .............................................................................. 39
Example of the comparison: “Ambulance” vs “Emergency Services” ................................................... 40
Example of the comparison for the term “Resilience”.......................................................................... 42
Example of the comparison for the term “Vulnerability” ..................................................................... 44
Example of the comparison of context of ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015 .............................................. 45
Annex C – The indicator calculation ................................................................................................... 47
The context indicator ............................................................................................................................ 47
The definition indicator ......................................................................................................................... 49
Specification degree .............................................................................................................................. 51
Annex D – Predefined ranges of indicators........................................................................................ 52
Annex E – Informative references ...................................................................................................... 55
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |6
www.episecc.eu
List of Tables
Table 1: List of published standards from CEN TC 391 .......................................................................... 15
Table 2: Examples of ongoing work initiatives within CEN TC 391....................................................... 16
Table 3: List of partners of the CEN Workshop Initiative Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster
Management ......................................................................................................................................... 22
Table 4: Definition categories and multiple choice selection parameters (see also Annex A) ............. 29
Table 5: Exemplary exercise of the definitions for the term “Emergency Management” .................... 37
Table 6: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator .......................................................... 38
Table 7: Exemplary exercise of the definition complex for the term of hazard .................................... 39
Table 8: Overview on parameters of the definition indicator for the term “Hazard” from ISO22300
and SDSIE 2017 ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 9: Exemplary exercise of the definition of “Ambulance” in comparison to “Emergency services”
............................................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 10: Overview on parameters of the definition indicator for “Ambulance” from TSO 2009 and
“Ambulance and pre-hospital services 2013” ....................................................................................... 42
Table 11: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “Ambulance”
from TSO 2009 and “Emergency Service” from UNISDR 2015 .............................................................. 42
Table 12: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “Emergency
Service” from “Emergency Service and pro-hospital services. 2009” and UNISDR 2015 ..................... 42
Table 13: Exemplary exercise of the definition of “Resilience” ............................................................ 43
Table 14: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience”
from ISO 22300 and ICRC 2015 ............................................................................................................. 44
Table 15: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience”
from ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015 ........................................................................................................ 44
Table 16: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience”
from ICRC and UNISDR 2015 ................................................................................................................. 44
Table 17: Exemplary exercise of the definition of vulnerability ............................................................ 45
Table 18: Exemplary exercise of the context from ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015 ................................. 45
Table 19: Overview on all parameters of the context indicator ........................................................... 46
Table 20: Specification degrees for the context indicator .................................................................... 51
Table 21: Specification degrees for the definition indicator ................................................................. 51
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |7
www.episecc.eu
List of Figures
Figure 1: EPISECC's identified need to fill the information interoperability standards gap above 3GPP
............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2: Overall approach for the generation of the methodology ..................................................... 25
Figure 3: Example of the outcome of an assessment overview on a standardization initiative on
interoperability ...................................................................................................................................... 32
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |8
www.episecc.eu
List of Acronyms
Abbreviation Description
4G fourth generation of broadband cellular network technology
5G fifth generation of broadband cellular network technology
CAP Common Alerting Protocol (OASIS standard)
CBRNe Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive
CEN European Committee for Standardization
CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
CEN TC391 CEN Technical Committee “Societal and Citizen Security”
CIS Common Information Space
COCOM Communication Committee
CWA CEN Workshop Agreement
DG Directorate General
DIN German Standardisation Institute
EC European Commission
EDXL Emergency Data Exchange Language (family of OASIS standards)
EMSI Emergency Management Shared Information (ISO/TR 22351:2015)
EMTEL Emergency Communications
EN European Standard
EPISECC Establish a Pan-European Information Space to Enhance seCurity of Citizens
ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute
EU European Union
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FP7 Seventh Framework Programme, European Union research and development
funding programme
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
ISO International Organization for Standardization
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |9
www.episecc.eu
JESIP Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme
LEMA Local Emergency Management Authority
LTD Long Term Definition
MC-PTT Mission Critical Push-to-Talk
MC-VIDEO Mission Critical Video
MC-Data Mission Critical Data
MRP Market Representation Partner
NBP National Broadband Plans
NEN Netherlands Standardisation Institute
NG112 Next Generation 112
NGO Non-governmental organisation
OASIS Initiative of Advancing open standards for the Information Societies
PCG Programme Coordination Group
PoC Proof of Concept
RAF ResiStandAssessment Framework
RTD Research Technology and Development
SDSIE Service de défense de sécurité et d'intelligence économique
SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System
TC Technical Committee
TER-CDM-THE Terminology for Crisis and Disaster Management Thesaurus
TETRA digital professional mobile radio standard, Terrestrial Trunked Radio
TETRAPOL digital professional mobile radio standard, professional mobile radio system for
closed user groups
TS Technical Specification
UK United Kingdom
UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
W3C group The World Wide Web Consortium
WHO World Health Organization
xG x´th generation of broadband cellular network technology
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |10
www.episecc.eu
1. Introduction
This deliverable provides an overview on the standardisation activities of EPISECC. First, the
outcomes of EPISECC potentially relevant for standardisation activities are identified:
the concept of the Common Information Space,
the EPISECC taxonomy and related aspects.
Several international organisations were approached in order to bring the results of EPISECC to
standardisation. Therefore, an overview on both approached organisations and related activities are
given.
It turned out that a CEN Workshop Agreement is the best suitable tool to bring forward outcomes
from EPISECC on taxonomy. Both newly developed analytic methods as well as their application on
reference terminologies of crisis and disaster management are included in this deliverable. The CEN
Workshop initiative involves also participating stakeholders such as authorities, standardisation and
research organisations in extension to the EPISECC partners.
This deliverable concludes with a short description of standardisation activities that are based on the
outcomes of EPISECC and will continue after closing of the project.
2. The EPISECC project
The imperative goal of the FP7 project EPISECC is the development of an integrated pan-European
crisis and disaster response capacity. For this purpose, a Common Information Space concept was
created and validated in a border crossing proof of concept. EPISECC aims also at bringing its results
to standardisation. This chapter gives first an overview on the project, the outcomes of EPISECC
suitable for standardisation and finally a description of the various initiatives of the project team
towards international standardisation bodies.
2.1. Overview of the project
A statement from the World Disaster Report from 2005 reflects perfectly the motivation for the project EPISECC:
“Disaster affected people need information as much as water, food, medicine or shelter: accurate, timely information can save lives. The right information helps aid organizations to understand better the needs of affected communities and ways to meet those needs. Today's information technology presents new possibilities, but has not been fully exploited by humanitarian organization. Lack of information can make people victims of disaster.”1
1 World Disaster Report 2005, International Federation of Red Cross, 2005.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |11
www.episecc.eu
Efficient communication and access to critical information are key requirements for the operations of
public safety and security services in emergencies as well as disasters. Inter-connectedness and
cooperation between different rescue teams are imperative requirements in order to save lives and
protect assets. However, the communication capabilities are often compromised or destroyed, either
by the catastrophe itself or its aftermath. In such cases, new communication systems must be
deployed to re-establish communication.
The first phase of disaster response always requires good situational awareness to define the most
urgent needs. In a big disaster like an earthquake or big flooding, rescue teams from different entities
(e.g. civil protection, fire brigades, police, medical emergency service) and different countries have to
collaborate. These teams use different IT systems, terminologies, technologies and protocols for
communication. For instance, in case of voice communication they may use digital radios based on
the digital professional mobile radio standards (such as TETRA or TETRAPOL) or they may use satellite
phones when no communication infrastructure is available any longer. These technologies allow a
communication between the team members and their control centre, whereas direct communication
between different entities from different countries is very difficult or even impossible.
The access to and sharing of information are crucial for a better situational awareness. Such
information comprises:
static background information like maps;
dynamic information from technical institutes like weather forecast;
dynamic information from infrastructure providers like information on power availability;
dynamic information from civil protection and emergency management agencies like aerial
photographs, available capacities, position of resources, information about needs, incidents,
tasks, relieve goods and so on;
dynamic information from the population itself, which can be retrieved via crowd-sourcing or social media.
EPISECC has been organised around the following concepts:
analysing the past major European emergencies and disasters in order to identify main
shortcomings of currently used data sets, the daily information management tools and
processes, the way of integration into crisis management procedures and the information
systems used by first responders and police authorities;
raising awareness of and advocating for the use of a modern information management and
communication technologies by first responders and policy authorities;
assisting the development of the rapidly evolving European policy in the area of security, civil
protection and humanitarian aid;
reducing the vulnerabilities and increasing resilience of European societies against security
risks, natural disasters and crisis.
The final goal of the EPISECC project is to create an integrated pan-European crisis and disaster
response capacity. A Common Information Space (CIS) design is the integral part of these joint
initiatives and the outcome will definitely contribute to the “de-fragmentation” process.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |12
www.episecc.eu
The comprehensive architecture of a “CIS” provided by the EPISECC project, including crisis and
disaster management processes, tools and procedures, guidelines for first responders and policy
makers, represents potential input to future standards or other tools provided by standardisation
organisations, which will be used by public authorities, international organisations and civil society.
The EPISECC project, with the CIS, will strengthen and improve the effectiveness and adequacy of
emergency and disaster response in Europe and beyond, which in turn has potential benefit on
several areas like ICT, quality of information, partnership, field level coordination, involvement of the
industry, preparedness, the security and safety of citizens and security forces.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |13
www.episecc.eu
2.2. EPISECC results relevant for standardisation
According to deliverable 9.2 “Exploitation & Service Provisioning concept (first release)”, EPISECC
produced five main outcomes:
the EPISECC Common Information Space (CIS),
the EPISECC Adaptation Services,
the EPISECC Semantic Service,
the EPISECC Semantic Repository,
the EPISECC Inventory Service.
The CIS is the main result of the project, and also the main outcome relevant for standardisation: it
represents the virtual space through which organisations can share information and exchange data in
order to have a comprehensive situational awareness, even if they belong to different types of
organisations and/or if they speak different languages. Within the CIS, data is transferred using an
EDXL format. Organisations require an adaptor converting the data they want to share (potentially
described with a different protocol by their legacy systems), to EDXL, and vice versa in case the
organisation is receiving information. The adaptor can be seen as communication link between a
participating organisation and the CIS; using an adaptor is the only way accessing to the Common
Information Space. The concept of the CIS is relevant to be brought as new proposal to international
standardisation bodies.
The CIS allows that terms and concepts are shared between organisations that speak different
languages or use different wording with same or similar meaning. To deal with this problem, a
semantic service was developed matching different terms used by different organisations for same or
semantically similar concepts. This service is based on the EPISECC Semantic Repository, containing
EPISECC Taxonomy and different semantic structures having concepts defined by international
standards (such as EMSI) or by practitioners' organisations. The semantic service can also be used
independently from the CIS, i.e. any organisation that interacts with another organisation that uses a
different terminology or language can benefit from it. Exchanging information with multiple
stakeholders and practitioners and cooperation with CEN revealed that the first step for further
standardisation activities was to compare and analyse terms and their definitions from different
terminologies applied in the domain of crisis and disaster management. Therefore, a CEN Workshop
Agreement was initiated accordingly (see chapter 4.1 of this deliverable).
Finally, the EPISECC project has developed an Inventory of past disasters, focussing on the efficiency
of interoperability (e.g. percentage of data exchanged from an organisation to another, percentage
of understood data), standard operational procedures as well as measures that have been performed
in the response phase. This inventory is a useful source of information for research institutes that
wants to examine gaps, needs and best practice to further investigations on how to improve disaster
management procedures, in order to bring a benefit to the whole community. However, no need was
identified to bring the inventory or its concept to international standardisation.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |14
www.episecc.eu
2.3. Standardisation bodies approached by the EPISECC team
Since its very inception, EPISECC has considered standards as the backbone of the Common
Information Space. At the time of the project preparation a number of active organisations and
promising standards were identified, namely ISO/CEN, ETSI/EMTEL and OASIS.
During the project execution, the members of EPISECC built the CIS according to the current and on-
going initiatives of those standardisation organisations, and looked for constructive ways for
contributing to the standards with the results of the project RTD activities and with the lesson learnt
from the project PoC.
It is a fact that the time needed for proposing a standard and getting it drafted, discussed and
approved is hardly compatible with the limited lifetime of an EC project. EPISECC decided to adopt
different strategies with the three standardisation organisations mentioned above, managing to
launch and complete a standardisation initiative (namely a CWA) with the CEN.
In this section of the report, the initiatives of EPISECC towards standardisation bodies are described.
2.3.1. ETSI
The activities of ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) have been a natural
reference for EPISECC, given the specific activities that the EMTEL (Emergency Communications)
Special committee carries over.
During the lifetime of EPISECC, ETSI has been defining the user requirements for the four main areas
of emergency communications:
communication from citizens to authorities/organizations (emergency calls),
communication between authorities/organizations (public safety communications),
communication from authorities/organizations to citizens (warning systems),
communication amongst citizens during emergencies.
The activity most relevant for EPISECC was of course "communication between
authorities/organizations", covered by the ETSI TS 102 181 Technical Specification.
Alongside the same aim of making the communications between authorities more efficient while
keeping them based on standards, there is a number of working initiatives that are partly relevant for
EPISECC:
TR 103 273 "Alerting libraries",
TR 103 335 "Alert message content accessibility",
TR 103 390 "Emergency App guidelines",
TS 103 478 "PEMEA - Pan European Mobile Emergency Application",
TS 103 479 "LTD NG112 - Core elements for network independent access to emergency
services",
TR 103 480 "Interoperability testing of core elements".
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |15
www.episecc.eu
The only working initiative that is active around the concept of "Interoperability" is TR 103 480, but
its timeline was not compatible with the lifetime of EPISECC: the first stable draft of the standard has
been published on 5th September 2017.
IES and FREQUENTIS, partners of EPISECC, were the initiators of the work on the LTD (Long Term
Definition) document for the architecture defined as "Next Generation 112" (in brief NG112).
Other initiatives pertaining to ETSI are those arranged around the 3GPP and is covered in chapter
2.3.3 of this report.
2.3.2. CEN
In the context of crisis management it turned out that the Technical Committee CEN TC391 “Societal
and Citizen Security” of CEN is the relevant focus point for EPISECC. Therefore, the EPISECC team
approached the mentioned TC in order to identify standardisation activities relevant for EPISECC. The
best possible way to be involved in the activities of a technical committee of CEN is to become
national delegate. For this purpose, Dr Georg Neubauer was sent by the Austrian Standardisation
Committee as national delegate to the meetings of TC 391. The main outcomes of EPISECC relevant
for standardisation are the concept of the Common Information Space on the one hand and the
taxonomy and related aspects on the other. The purpose of the initiative was to identify if one or
both results of EPISECC can be brought into European standardisation via CEN TC 391.
2.3.2.1. Structure and activities of CEN TC 391
Looking at the focus TC 391 “Societal and Citizen Security”, aspects such as prevention, response,
mitigation, continuity and recovery before, during and after destabilising or disruptive events as well
as verification and training are covered. TC 391 focuses its standardisation activities on the following
main issues:
product and services (e.g. equipment, communication or information),
infrastructures (e.g. airports, ports, railway),
relationships and citizen requirements and vulnerabilities.
Currently three working groups are active within TC 391:
WG1: Healthcare facilities,
WG2: CBRNe,
WG3: Crisis management/civil protection.
Table 1 gives an overview on recent published standards from TC 391.
Table 1: List of published standards from CEN TC 391
Reference Title Publication date
CEN/TS 16595:2013 CBRN – Vulnerability
Assessment and Protection of
People at Risk
2013-09-04
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |16
www.episecc.eu
CEN/TS 16850:2015 Societal and Citizen Security –
Guidance for managing
security in healthcare facilities
2015-09-16
EN ISO 22300:2017 Societal security - Terminology 2017-07-18
EN ISO 22301:2014 Societal security – Business
continuity management
systems – Requirements
2014-07-23
EN ISO 22311:2014 Societal security – video
surveillance – export
interoperability
2014-11-05
EN ISO 22313:2014 Societal security – business
continuity management
systems - guidance
2014-11-05
In the frame of TC 391 there are several other ongoing actions in addition to the already published
documents. Table 2 gives an overview on them (status 2017-10-10).
Table 2: Examples of ongoing work initiatives within CEN TC 391
Reference Title Forecasted voting date
FprCEN/TS 17159 Societal and citizen security –
Guidance for the security of
hazardous materials (CBRNe)
in healthcare facilities
Not defined yet
prCEN /TS 17091 Crisis Management –
Developing a strategic
capability
Not defined yet
prEN 17173 European CBRNe glossary 2018-09-18
prEN IS0 22315 Societal security – Mass
Evacuation – Guidelines for
planning
2018-02-22
prEN ISO 22397 Societal security – Guidelines
for establishing partnering
arrangements
2018-02-22
It turned out that the activities of WG3 are very close to the scope of EPISECC. Therefore, main
involvement was established in WG3 of TC 391.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |17
www.episecc.eu
2.3.2.2. Initiative supported by CEN TC 391 to bring EPISECC initiative to standardisation
The involvement in the activities of CEN TC 391 revealed that the best option to bring EPISECC
outcomes to standardisation was to launch a CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) on terminologies in
crisis and disaster management. The outcome of such an initiative shall serve as basis for future
standardisation activities related to taxonomy in crisis and disaster management. Therefore, CEN TC
391 supported the initiation of the mentioned CWA. Before final submission, the CEN/TC 391 will
receive the report for consideration (for more details see chapter 4.1 of this report).
2.3.3. 3GPP
In October 2016, PSCE became a Market Representation Partner (MRP) of 3GPP. It is well known that
public safety communication users will transition to use broadband mobile technology in the
upcoming years. Public safety communication stakeholders have been busy defining the standards
for Mission Critical Push-to-Talk (MC-PTT), Video (MC-VIDEO) and Data (MC-Data). The standards to
be put in place for broadband communications should enable also the information interoperability.
Therefore, informing 3GPP on possible needs and tools that will establish the CIS is a prerequisite.
On 28th September 2017, PSCE presented the status of the EPISECC project, which can build upon this
foundation. MC-Data builds upon the 4G/5G standards defined by 3GPP to provide a highly reliable
data service. EPISECC activity was presented to the 3GPP Programme Coordination Group (PCG)
along with several other projects to identify the weight of need to enhance the standards above
3GPP MC-services. Figure 1 illustrates the scope of the standardisation gap identified and presented
to 3GPP.
The PCG is the highest decision making body of 3GPP. PSCE is a Market Representation Partner
(MRP) of 3GPP and regularly attends this meeting. Three clear messages were delivered:
Procurement of new broadband capabilities for public safety will be growing in the
timeframe 2020-2025, and maturing in the timeframe 2025-2030;
Mission critical public safety broadband capability should remain a core focus, as the
progress is made to standardise 5G and beyond. Mission Critical standardisation should not
be put to the side because of the swell of commercial interest in new G’s. Mission Critical
standardisation should remain a strong and core element of future 5G, 6G, xG standards;
There is a significant gap regarding the informational interoperability, for which discussion is
needed to define the steps forward, and the appropriate standardisation bodies to be
involved.
In support of this activity, PSCE is also working with FirstNet in the US, to bring together critical
international mass of those who intend to procure new broadband capabilities across the world. A
series of regular meetings of key stakeholders around the world is planned, following from FirstNet’s
initialisation of this activity last year. An initial meeting will be held alongside PSCE’s conference in
Madrid in November 2017, followed by a global meeting in May 2018.
Such critical mass is considered essential to ensure that the global standards and technologies are
aligned and ready for the public safety community in order to procure the solutions that they need.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |18
www.episecc.eu
Figure 1: EPISECC's identified need to fill the information interoperability standards gap above 3GPP
2.4. Other activities
Currently, there are no specific activities in the frame of CEN TC 391 that are suitable to bring the
concept of a common information space to standardisation (see Table 2). In addition, in other
standardisation bodies, no activities related to interoperability in crisis and disaster management on
syntactical and semantic level were identified. In order to assess the feasibility of such a
standardisation initiative, the EPISECC team started a pre-standardisation assessment process
supported by the German and the Dutch standardisation committees (for more details see chapter
5.2 of this report).
Conversely, the publication of the CEN TC 223 (Societal Security, Emergency Management) Technical
Report TR 22351 (Message structure for exchange of information) was relevant for EPISECC because
it inherited the TSO pre-standard, considered by the project partners as one of the possible formats
for the message payload. In addition, the report 22320:2011 (Requirements for incident response)
was taken into account while designing the CIS for EPISECC.
Another important standardisation activity EPISECC was working with the OASIS initiative (Advancing
open standards for the Information Societies). OASIS is the organisation that developed and
promulgated the CAP and the EDXL-family of standards, both identified by EPISECC as the most
promising and flexible formats for information interoperability in disasters and emergency situations.
IES, one of the partners of EPISECC, worked in the Emergency Management Technical Committee of
OASIS for the entire duration of the project, acting both as provider of "first hand" information to the
consortium (in particular about the interpretation of some nuances of the standards and as "feeder"
to OASIS regarding the developments carried out in EPISECC). The intermediate and final results of
©PSCEuropeForum2017
Source:ESENETproject
PoliticalObjectives
HarmonisedStrategy/Doctrines
AlignedOperations
AlignedProcedures
DataObject/ModelInteroperability
InformationInteroperability
ProtocolInteroperability
PhysicalInteroperability
Knowledge/Awareness
SyntacticalInteroperability
SemanticalInteroperability
PhysicalInteroperability
PragmaticInteroperability
SocialandculturalInteroperability
Source:N
ATO
Research
TaskGroup
www.episecc.euwww.concorde-project.euwww.driver-project.eu
CommonInformationSpace
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |19
www.episecc.eu
EPISECC were presented to the CAP Implementer community during the "CAP Implementers'
Workshops" organised by OASIS, ITU and WMO in 2015 and 2017.
On 21st of September, PSCE was invited by the European Commission DG Connect to attend the kick
off meeting of a new “National Broadband Plans and 5G (NBP/5G)” working group of the
Communication Committee2 (COCOM). COCOM is a committee composed of representatives of EU
member states who provide their opinion on the draft measures that the Commission deals with in
course of the agenda of the Digital Single Market.
PSCE was invited to stress the importance that mobile broadband for public safety communication
should be included in national broadband plans, and supported by related policy, as each member
state defines and implements their national plans for 5G deployment. PSCE’s presentation was also
reinforced by a presentation made by the French Ministry of Interior who explained their clear plans
for adoption of mobile broadband for public safety in France.
2 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/communications-committee
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |20
www.episecc.eu
3. Standardisation activities in the frame of EPISECC
In the frame of EPISECC the main standardisation activity was the planning and the execution of the
first stage of the CEN Workshop on Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster Management. This chapter
gives an overview on these activities.
3.1. CEN Workshop on terminologies in crisis and disaster management
As mentioned in chapter 2.3.2.2 of this report, a CEN Workshop Agreement on terminologies in crisis
and disaster management was jointly launched by EPISECC and the FP7 projects SECTOR and
SecInCore. The initiative is supported by CEN TC 391. This chapter gives general information on the
concept of CEN Workshop Agreements, on the structure of this specific CEN Workshop initiative on
terminologies in crisis and disaster management, on the multiple partners being members of the
initiative (the initiative involves of members of multiple organisations not limited at all to the
partners of the three initiating projects), on the outcomes of the initiative and finally on further
activities beyond the time horizon of the EPISECC project.
3.1.1. The CEN Workshop Agreement approach
CEN provides different types of products:
European standards,
technical Specifications,
technical Reports,
guides,
CEN Workshop Agreements (CWAs).
It turned out that the CWA is the most suitable product for EPISECC’s purposes. From a formal point
of view it is an agreement developed and approved in a CEN Workshop. It is open to the participation
of anyone with interest in developing such an agreement. Participants from outside Europe are
possible. The duration of a CWA is on average between 10 and 12 months. It is important to notice
that a CWA does not have the status of a European standard; therefore, it leads to no obligations on
national level. A CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) results in a document published by CEN.
The procedure of developing a CWA starts with the submission of a request to the CEN-CENELEC
Management Centre or a CEN-CENELEC national member. The requests include among others a draft
project plan an analysis of the degree of interest in the subject. In case of a positive decision by the
CEN Technical Board, the proposal is announced on the CEN website. During the kick-off meeting the
proposed project plan is accepted by a common agreement and a chairperson is appointed. Then,
the CWA members draft the CWA report according to the project plan. After agreement of the CWA
members on the draft CWA report, CEN starts an open commenting phase of at least 60 days.
Subsequent to the consideration of potential comments by the CWA participants, the final report is
provided to the CEN-CENELEC management centre and becomes valid for at least three years. For
further details, see https://boss.cen.eu/developingdeliverables/CWA/Pages/default.aspx.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |21
www.episecc.eu
3.1.2. The CWA initiative on terminologies in crisis and disaster management
On the 1st of March 2017 the kick-off meeting of the CEN Workshop on Terminologies in Crisis and
Disaster Management took place in Brussels. The FP7 projects EPISECC, SecInCoRe (Secure Dynamic
Cloud for Information, Communication and Resource Interoperability) and SECTOR (Secure European
Common Information Space for the Interoperability of First Responders and Police Authorities)
developed concepts and prototypes of common information spaces including taxonomy concepts in
order to improve and facilitate information exchange between first responders and other
stakeholders. Additional is provided by partners from the FP7 project ConCorde as well as the FP7
project DRIVER (for more details on the partners see chapter 4.1 of this deliverable). According to the
Project Plan for this CEN Workshop (ftp://ftp.cencenelec.eu/CEN/News/2017/WS/TER-
CDM/ProjectPlan.pdf) the following main objectives were defined:
Support of the mutual understanding of users applying various standards (and multiple
semantic structures such as thesauri, terminologies, dictionaries) to enhance mutual
understanding;
Support the use of most commonly used terms and definitions arising from multiple sources
to enhance communication effectiveness.
The project plan identifies among others the following stakeholders as main target groups:
civil protection authorities,
Local Emergency Management Authorities (LEMA),
fire brigades,
police authorities,
first responders (e.g. Red Cross, Knights of St. John),
cross border operations,
military forces involved in crisis and disaster management,
critical infrastructure operators,
industry involved in disaster management and civil protection.
The scope of the workshop can be defined as follows:
“This CEN Workshop Agreement analyses scopes of terminologies as well as definitions of terms of
such terminologies used predominantly in crisis and disaster management. Both scopes and
definitions from different sources are compiled and compared regarding several aspects such as their
context and envisaged audience. The focus is set in responses to large scale critical events. Small scale
incidents managed by daily routine processes of stakeholders are also covered but are not the main
focus of this work. Selected terminologies predominantly from the domains crisis and disaster
management are used for the analysis and are included in the document.
The CEN Workshop Agreement includes terminologies and taxonomies, but no ontologies.”
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |22
www.episecc.eu
It is pointed out that it is not possible to analyse all existing terms and definitions applied in national
and international crisis management. The participating projects selected specific domains of crisis
management such as the response phase of crisis management on strategic and tactical levels to
demonstrate the feasibility of the CWA approach. The following framing was set:
a focus on the response phase in crisis and disaster management,
a focus on large scale catastrophes,
no special focus (but not a priori exclusion) on critical infrastructure protection, resilience,
CBRNe and emergency management,
no focus on security aspects such as cyber security, border control as well as physical
security.
The initiative is intended to be terminated by the end of October 2017. At this stage, a report with
the outcomes will be provided to CEN.
3.1.3. The CWA partners
Several FP7 projects are supporting the CEN workshop initiative (see also chapter 3.1.2). During the
lifespan multiple persons joined the initiative, and therefore the list of partners includes many
partners not being involved in the initiating projects. In Table 3, the partners, their roles in the CWA,
their companies as well as the projects the partners are involved in are listed.
Table 3: List of partners of the CEN Workshop Initiative Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster Management
Name Company Role in CWA Project
Georg Neubauer,
Alexander
Preinerstorfer, Karin
Rainer
AIT Austrian Institute
of Technology GmbH
chairperson,
member
FP7 EPISECC
Uberto Delprato IES Solutions member FP7 EPISECC
Martina Baucic,
Snjezana Knezic
University of Split member,
member
FP7 EPISECC
Tom Flynn Saadian Technologies,
TFC Research and
Innovation
member FP7 SECTOR
Monika Buscher Lancaster University member FP7 SecInCore
Jens Pottebaum,
Christina Schäfer,
Rainer Koch
Paderborn University vice chairperson,
member,
member
FP7 SecInCore
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |23
www.episecc.eu
René Lindner,
Christopher Liedtke
DIN secretariat,
secretariat
--
Jean-Louis Olie,
Eric Barbay
French Ministry of
Environment,
Transport and Energy
member,
member
--
Patricia Compard French Ministry of
Interior
member --
Georgios Kolliarakis Goethe University
Frankfurt
member --
Toni Staykova Cambridge University
Hospitals
member FP7 ConCorde
4. The first stage results of the CEN Workshop initiative
This CEN Workshop focuses on generating a valid methodology including an applicable categorisation
as well as indicators to define terms and foster common understanding for crisis and disaster
management. Thus, the results are:
1. a methodology (see 4.1),
2. a quality frame for definitions (see 4.2 ),
3. good practice examples of terms, definitions and analyses of degree of similarities (see
chapter 4.4 and Annex B),
4. application of indicators to these examples (see chapter 4.4, Annex B and Annex C).
The terminologies were retrieved from different exemplary sources and organizations, compiled and
compared regarding several aspects such as their context and envisaged audience. By applying
analyses of scopes of terminologies as well as definitions of terms, deviations between homophone
or homograph terms can be detected as well as similarities and/or overlaps in the case of different
terms. As the following detailed description shows, this is relevant to form a basis for a shared
wording and understanding of practitioners from different organisations, countries, and with
different professional background to cooperate in large scale critical events. Although small scale
incidents managed by daily routine processes of stakeholders are also covered, they are not the main
focus of this work. Selected terminologies, predominantly from the crisis and disaster management
domains, are used for the analysis and are included as examples in the document.
The CEN Workshop Report focuses on terminologies, vocabularies and taxonomies, but not on
ontologies.
4.1. Methodology
The main target of the first stage of the initiative is the development of an overall methodological
framework for analysis of a high quality vocabulary in the field of disaster and crisis management.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |24
www.episecc.eu
The methodology aims at a scientifically sound but at the same time practically applicable system to
facilitate the comparison, which is focused on similarities, overlaps, and differences of vocabularies
applied predominantly in the domain of crisis and disaster management as well as of definitions of
concepts included in such vocabularies. It is based on selected vocabularies from this domain taken
from international organisations and their defining documents such as standards3.
These sources of concepts and terms are mainly organised as terminologies containing definitions of
various depth and detail. For the purpose of the methodology, the terminology is defined as
technical vocabulary. It aims at establishing a common understanding of concepts by providing their
terms and specifying definitions. Thus, the provision of coherent terms, belonging to a particular
universe of discourse or a subject area, which are intended to be consistently used by practitioners of
various organisations, different nationalities, and working areas in practice.
Common word search engines can perform the identification and first processing of homograph
words in existing terminologies automatically if terminologies are adequately retrieved, gathered,
and organized.
In the initial phase, the CWA methodology limits its scope strategically to those terminologies
intended for international/inter-organisational use. For the clarity of the concept, it focuses on
sources in English that can generate a better common understanding of practitioners in a first step.
The CWA methodology specifically focuses on homophonous and homograph words with different
meanings appearing in the definitions as well as on different terms that are overlapping or totally
covering the same meaning. These options are deemed highly relevant to clarify communication in
disaster and crisis management activities in all phases and among all stakeholders. Considering this
approach, misunderstandings and errors evolving from different inherent concepts are prone to be
minimised and in the best case prevented.
The set of identified concepts has to be further examined to assess their semantic similarity. Herein,
the methodology proposes indicators to be used for identification of an initial degree of the semantic
similarity between concepts, in particular the scope of terminologies and as well as definitions of
terms. The first type of indicator is based on the metadata about concepts’ source, i.e. terminologies
and their context (e.g. scopes). The second type of indicator allows comparison between descriptions
of equally spelled terms from different sources. This process needs to be highly end user- and
requirements-driven and results in definitions of a type of the relation (mapping) between two
concepts. Identification of concepts having exactly the same meaning but different terms or concepts
having nearly the same meaning and different terms cannot be easily automated and human
involvement in this process is strongly recommended. Once identified, such concepts can be further
semantically compared with indicators using the same approach.
3 The CEN Workshop initiative does not address cyber-security, counter-terrorism, border control, critical
infrastructure protection directly: some of the results of evaluations can eventually be applied to those domains, but not as a primary application area.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |25
www.episecc.eu
For a comparable and above all practically feasible system to parallel and discriminate terms in the
field of disaster and crisis management a matrix of categories with multiple-choice options was
generated in tight connection of the CWA partners.
The core relationships between concepts/terms proposed in this methodology were identified to
have the following semantic values:
• exact match: concepts have exactly the same meaning;
• non-exact match: concepts are related either hierarchically (broader or narrower) or
they have certain semantic overlaps or equivalency - they can also be similar or
associated in some way while the degree of those connections can be specified by using
the indicator;
• no match: concepts have no or no significant semantic connection.
Relevant selection possibilities were generated, tested, and validated on examples by referring to the
later applicability and transferability into the standing practice of stakeholders.
To reach this systemic output, the following activities for the correlation and comparison of the
terminologies visualised in Figure 2 were conducted in the course of the CWA.
Figure 2: Overall approach for the generation of the methodology
These activities included the following main steps further detailed in Annex A:
A1) Methodology specification and preparation:
a. universe of discourse refinement,
b. specification of documentation tools (used for online documentation),
c. indicator definition (here: application driven);
A2) Collection of informative references:
identification of relevant terminologies based on recommendations made by working
group members,
application of the quality framework for definitions;
A3) Data Analysis:
a. identification of good candidates for mutual comparison:
o identification of exactly the same single-word terms and their descriptions,
o identification of same words in single- and multi-word terms (excluding so-called
stop words),
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |26
www.episecc.eu
o identification of concepts having exactly the same meaning but different terms,
o identification of concepts having nearly the same meaning and different terms;
b. establishment of relationships between identified concepts;
c. creation of adequate organisational structure using identified relationships;
A4) Validation of all artefacts and application of a peer review process.
The cases of raw terminologies with missing concept descriptions or no distinct definition in the
sources were carefully examined in a first step. Although being a relevant challenge for further
elaboration and development of the methodological approach the challenges of different languages
could not be considered in this first stage.
Once the relationships were established and adequate organizational structure has been set up,
more exact semantic analysis between terminologies were carried out. For the later comparison of
terminologies and their terms, the application of the developed indicators is sufficient for the
practical use.
The described methodology reflects the approach developed in a peer review process by the
members of the working group in order to achieve the goals of this CEN Workshop Agreement. Thus,
the views of relevant stakeholders and representatives of the scientific community as well as from
different categories of stakeholders and end users were included.
4.2. Quality frame for generating and selecting definitions
To reach a high quality of the general output and outcome of the CWA, several quality criteria
forming an indicative frame, were identified. These common rules and minimum requirements were
considered relevant to grant a good outcome of the gathered definitions basing on the
methodological output of the CEN Workshop initiative4. They are shortly outlined and extended for
the necessities of the CWA in the following steps:
1. The definitions of the terms shall set out the essential attributes of the objects or concepts
defined by following the categories and parameters stated in chapter 4.1 and Annex A.
2. Definitions should avoid direct circularity although it is a necessity to include the specific
terms used for the definitions into the database and include them into the definition
exercise. Circular references emerging from this practice will not have severe negative
influence on the high quality of the data collection due to the additional informational
discourse provided by the different explanatory categories.
3. The definitions of the used sources and documents should not be too wide or too narrow to
grant practicability without missing out or including non-applicable factors.
4 see Macagno, Fabrizio; Walton, Douglas (2014). Emotive Language in Argumentation. New York: Cambridge
University Press. Chapter III.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |27
www.episecc.eu
4. The definitions must be clear and explain the meaning by the use of other words that are
commonly understood. To clarify them, further definitions according to the second rule may
be necessary and sensible.
5. The definitions should be positive and avoid whenever possible the negation of other terms.
6. The definitions should include input in all given categories to provide all necessary
information for the later use of the intended user groups.
7. A system of peer review or a four-eye-principle should be applied to support the relevance
and validity of the definitions.
To grant a high reliability while performing comparative analysis of context and definitions –
specifically in the fields of implicit information like the effect of a defined object or activity related to
a term – the principle of a peer review and validation of the definition was deemed useful and
necessary. The result of this combination is reflecting on the one side the essence of a term and its
meaning for the use in the defined field of emergency and disaster management as well as to listing
the objects that a term is used for5. In addition, an indicative quality frame for the definitions per se
has to be considered. It is proposed to achieve practical relevance and conciseness of the selected
terms and their meanings extracted from their various sources by applying a mixed methods
approach of intensional6 and extensional7 definitions. Special focus lies on the challenging fact of
definitions of homographs by different documents and/or different organisations in the field that
leads to more or less varying outputs as shown in Annex B.
By applying these principles and realising the outputs of the derived methodology as living and
growing structure that will be facilitated and applied by the end users, the definitions will contribute
to the intended scope of the CWA.
4.3. Context and definition analyses
Evolving from the basis of the categories, indicators, and parameters described in Section 4.1 and
further detailed in Annex A, it becomes obvious that the area of the definition has to be elaborated
in detail. This is necessary for a straight forward and end user oriented comparability and also for the
discrimination of different terms. Besides this precondition for the later applicability in an
international, cross-system and cross-organisational context, a thorough test of the above-
mentioned methodology and the considered variables becomes a main objective.
For a solid validation test, selected terms were exemplarily elaborated and analysed regarding their
context and definitions. The blue category parameters (Definition) (see – Methodology specification
and preparation (A1)) were applied in addition to the basic information inserted in the excel data
collection by the CWA-partners, consisting typically of cited terms and definitions. By orienting on
5 see Lyons, John. "Semantics, vol. I." Cambridge: Cambridge (1977). pp 158.
6 defining a term by outlining the necessary and sufficient conditions of the use of it
7 formulating its meaning by specifying its extension which makes it only possible for finite sets and only
practical for relatively small sets
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |28
www.episecc.eu
the quality parameters defined in chapter 4.2, a high level of reliability of the selected multiple-
choice settings was reached.
Starting from the definition of several guiding questions, it became possible to systematically reach
the parametrisation of the specific additive definition section. These questions were crystallised by
the cooperating CWA-partners as the following examples show:
What kind of organizations is addressed in the definition? (Group: organization, geographical
area);
Is there a domain addressed in the definition? (category, scenario of application).
In principle, an analysis of a subject, an object and a predicate was conducted within this definition
following the technique of discourse parsing as explained in Annex A.
The choice of the terms is oriented on covering a high relevance for the field and the concerned
practitioners/intended end users of the outputs of this CEN Workshop initiative. Additionally, the
coverage of different initially cited definitions of identically spelled terms and linked with this
different sources of the identic terms were identified as important.
In addition to the initial use, it was an objective to create the methodology being applicable in
tackling similar terms and their connection in the future. Furthermore, the selection aimed at using
different layers of complexity to support the validation of different terms relevant and useful for the
exchange between different stakeholders in multiple types of organisations responsible for and
involved in disaster and emergency management on different stages of abstraction.
The guiding questions and additional input of the stakeholders of the CWA-partnership were
elaborated. Their answers can be easily selected via the multiple choice selection modes as shown in
the Table 4.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |29
www.episecc.eu
Table 4: Definition categories and multiple choice selection parameters (see also Annex A)
While the parameters regarding the type of organisation as well as the type of geographical area are
following the analogous points of the other categories phase, range of escalation and scenario of
application were transferred from other, generally accepted models in the field of emergency
management. The phases were extracted from the generic disaster management cycle phases8. The
parameters of the range of escalation were deduced from the basic discrimination between large
scale disasters – not manageable on local/regional level – and small scale emergencies9. The scenario
of application was extracted from an approach that is as holistic as possible to cover all possible
types of events10.
The categories referring to the other properties of the discourse parsing as “objects” and “effects”
were deduced to the most generic level to make them applicable to the broad range of different
aspects. In general, the objects were divided into different groups of persons involved in the
definition, equipment and infrastructure used or influenced as well as concepts that are relevant and
active in the context. Regarding the effects, it has to be underpinned that the intended and
immediate effects in the considered temporal and situational setting have to be evaluated and/or
implied. Thus, the parameters can be seen as having positive, negative, neutral or no effects.
8 see e.g. Vasilescu, L.G., Khan, H., Khan, A. Disaster Management CYCLE – a theoretical approach. In:
Management & Marketing 6(1):43-50. January 2008. 9 see e.g. http://apps.who.int/disasters/repo/7656.pdf (retrieved 02.10.2017)
10 see e.g. http://www.datypic.com/sc/niem31/t-em_AlertEventDetailsCategoryCodeType.html (retrieved
02.10.2017)
Definition
Type of organisation
(multiple choice) Phase (multiple choice)
Range of Escalation
(multiple choice)
Scenario of Application
(mutliple choice) Objects Effects
Type of geografical area
(multiple choice)
Governmental Prevention (Mitigation, risk management*)Emergency (small scale)"Geo” - Geophysical (inc.
landslide) groups of personspositiv Local
Industry / other business Preparation (resilience) Disaster (large scale)“Met” - Meteorological (inc.
flood) equipmentnegativ Regional
Research and Education Response Other (to be specified) “Safety” - General
emergency and public safety infrastructure
neutral/noneNational
standardisation Recovery Not Specified
“Security” - Law
enforcement, military,
homeland and local/private
security concept
International (EU, continent, cross
border)
NGOs“Rescue” - Rescue and
recovery
International“Fire” - Fire suppression and
rescue
Other (to be specified)“Health” - Medical and public
healthOther (to be specified)
General public“Env” - Pollution and other
environmentalNot Specified
First responders“Transport” - Public and
private transportation
Practitioners“Infra” - Utility,
telecommunication, other
non-transport infrastructure
Not Specified
“CBRNE” – Chemical,
Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear and Explosives
Other
Not Specified
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |30
www.episecc.eu
Terms with different definitions in one document (e.g. in regards of different local/temporal/action-
related settings as the double definition of “ambulance” defined in the TSO and given in Annex B)
were decided to be combined with the according reference. This will facilitate a clear understanding
of the term according to this source without ignoring relevant background information. Thus, terms
can be compared and used by the intended stakeholders.
4.4. Exemplary outputs on analyses of context and definitions
As further elaborated in Annex B – Example comparisons of terms and sources”, the common and
specific cases of the definition in different sources generated by specifically oriented organisations
are relevant for the applicability of the CWA-methodology.
Basically, as also mentioned in section 4.1 on Methodology, the general constellations of definitions
were identified as following:
• One term is defined by different sources and generating organizations similarities
and/or deviations according to the selected categories and contexts;
• One term is included in the definition of another term they have overlaps and
similarities (e.g. item and sub-item);
• Two terms are (more or less) sharing one definition identification of overlaps and
differences; specifically in the context of different organisations this is relevant.
Differences in the definition of homographs and incomplete overlaps underpin the potential of
misunderstandings. Thus, the importance of a common understanding of these aspects and a shared
terminology supported by the CWA-outputs is key. Obvious differences on the level of elaboration of
the description are also to be taken into account and taken into account when applying the
indicators. This helps practitioners to identify highly loaded and detailed definitions for further use.
Thus, the application of the CEN Workshop methodology and categorisation supports the analysis of
possible differences induced by different types of organisation, phases and context, the range of
escalation and the other items defined in section 4.1 and further detailed in Annex A.
5. Further activities beyond the end of EPISECC
Beyond the end of EPISECC, a second stage of the CEN Workshop will continue in order to improve
the repository of the initiative by adding additional relevant terminologies. Moreover, additional
validations are going to be performed. For details, see chapter 5.2 of this deliverable.
5.1. Standardisation activities beyond the EPISECC horizon
Two activities related to standardisation are planned in order to have a follow up after the end of
EPISECC:
stage 2 of the CEN Workshop on terminologies in crisis and disaster management, and
the feasibility assessment of the development of a standard on interoperability in crisis and
disaster management.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |31
www.episecc.eu
This section gives a short overview on both activities.
5.2. The CWA on terminologies in crisis and disaster management – stage 2
By the end of October 2017 stage 1 of the CEN Workshop on Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster
Management is finalized. In the frame of the first stage of the CEN Workshop the focus was set on:
development of a methodology to compare the context of different terminologies of the
crisis and disaster management domain,
development of a methodology to compare the definitions of homograph terms from
different terminologies,
identification and inclusion of a set of reference terminologies in the CEN Workshop
repository (currently the terminologies are stored in Excel-sheets, but more sophisticated
solutions are envisaged),
testing and validation of the methodologies by using reference terminologies.
The outcomes of stage 1 of the CEN Workshop are reported in the report “First stage of the CWA on
Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster Management” from October 201711. It was decided by the
members of the CEN Workshop that an extension of the content of the repository of the CEN
Workshop initiative is quite beneficial for future applications. It was therefore decided to extend the
scope of the CEN Workshop by adding a second stage. Because the methods developed within the
CEN Workshop are also helpful for the activities of the FP7 project DRIVER+, the following objectives
for the stage 2 of the CEN Workshop were defined:
inclusion of additional terminologies of the crisis and disaster management domain in the
CEN Workshop repository,
execution of additional comparisons of context and definitions,
use of the terminologies of the CEN Workshop in order to strengthen the requested DRIVER+
terminology.
Therefore, the timeline of the CEN Workshop will be extended until end of June 2018. At the given
stage it is planned to give a presentation of the CWA results at an I4CM Workshop (International
Workshop on “Innovation for Crisis Management”) in late spring/early summer 2018.
5.3. Assessment of the feasibility of a standard on interoperability in crisis and disaster
management
The H2020 ResiStand project aims to improve crisis management and disaster resilience by
establishing a sustainable process to support standardisation of technologies and services. For this
purpose ResiStand developed the ResiStand Assessment Framework (RAF) for standardisation
activities. The RAF consists of an interface realised as extensive excel sheet with several tabs where
one can assess whether a new idea for standardisation might be feasible. The idea of such a
11
At the time of finalisation of this Deliverable the mentioned report was finalized by the members of the CWA and submitted to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre for further processing
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |32
www.episecc.eu
framework is that it can help proposers to think further about all the aspects involved in developing a
standard. This assessment is not meant to replace anything existing (such as the NWIP form), but
rather to be applied before the formal standardisation procedures start, and therefore to create
awareness of the whole development and application of a standardisation idea.
The framework includes aspects such as:
intake (proposed activity, stakeholder involvement, uniqueness and compliancy issues),
(related) disaster types,
trends (anticipated by the proposed standard),
impacts (on the practitioners level),
impacts (on industry and research),
feasibility (e.g. development perspectives, implementation, constraints).
The outcome of the assessment is presented in an overview, an example of a preliminary evaluation
is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Example of the outcome of an assessment overview on a standardization initiative on interoperability
Supported by experts of the Netherlands Standardisation Institute (NEN) and the German
Standardisation Institute (DIN) the EPISECC team recently started such a pre-standardisation
evaluation process. This activity will be continued beyond the time frame of EPISECC. It is intended to
continue activities within the FP7 project DRIVER+.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |33
www.episecc.eu
Annex A – Methodology specification and preparation (A1)
Universe of discourse refinement (A1a)
The key intention of the CWA is to simplify access to and usage of terminologies as well as to
facilitate bridging between different terminologies. Therefore, the universe of discourse needs to be
determined from an application driven perspective. Scenarios describing potential use cases (UCs) for
the CWA reflect this. Primary questions for the use cases are:
Who (type of organization, actor) will use the TER-CDM-THE (T-C-T) and
for which purpose (type of action)?
Is the T-C-T used directly (spoken or written communication) or mediated by
software tools?
When and where is the use of the T-C-T intended?
The initial set of use cases collected within the CWA working group includes:
UC1) “Communication, information exchange” (from SG/SDSIE/DPGC): Technical experts
are requested to support crisis management staff during a crisis. As crisis management is not
part of their day-to-day work, they are provided with the thesaurus incorporated in context
specific terminology cards.
UC2) “Exchange of messages with annotation” (from EPISECC) UC2: Recipient receives hint
in their own terminology about semantics that were used by sender.
UC3) “Collection of relevant documents for emergency planning” (from SecInCoRe): UC3-1
Search string is typed into search engine, hint is provided regarding semantically related
terms; UC3-2: Search results are enriched by semantic annotations.
UC4) “Exchange of real time operational data for EMS” (COncORDE): UC4-1: User (e.g. 112
or ground responder) selects or writes a term to describe a hazard (e.g. dangerous gas) and
semantic search provides the relevant instructions from a linked DB for immediate action to
all users in the relevant area; UC4-2: User (e.g. field doctor) inputs injury description of
patient, system uses semantic search to recommend best hospital (type of specialty to type
of injury match).
UC5) Training, debrief. Learning, risk analysis: Emergency training exercise leaders use T-C-
T to find examples of mistakes and best practice around the same issue across past disaster
reports.
Use cases, UC1 to UC5, are represented by members of the CWA working group12.
Documentation models, formats and tools (A1b)
The use of common formats and tools is essential to facilitate collaboration. Parallel activities need to
be supported by these tools. Today, the terminologies should be stored in digital forms appropriate
12
The different Use Cases have partial similarities, e.g. UC5 can be seen as practical application of UC3.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |34
www.episecc.eu
for the intended use: for instance from pdf or xls document that could be searched and read on any
device to open databases that could be linked with other sources of terms and used by software
applications. Several efforts have been made to standardise digital form for terminologies and other
structures such as dictionaries, vocabularies, controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, thesauri and
unified thesaurus. The working group agrees to use:
Microsoft Excel for the collection of terminologies (i.e. terms and corresponding meta-data),
Microsoft Word and PowerPoint for textual and graphical documentation.
Besides selected tools, which are intuitive and well-known for all participants, the working group
considered data models proposed by the standard ISO 25964 and The World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C group) Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS).
Indicator definition (A1c)
The terms and their definitions can be described according to three different main categories of
parameters (see also Table 4):
1. the terms themselves (blue category13),
2. the definitions themselves (blue category),
3. the context:
a. the intended user groups (yellow category),
b. the intended domain of application (green category),
c. the source (grey category).
For each of these four categories a set of parameters were defined. In general, one can distinguish
between two ways on how parameters are determined:
Descriptions taken exactly from the source document (citation);
Categories are determined according to a multiple choice selection scheme (see the
proposed multiple choice categories below). This implies some kind of interpretation by
someone performing the multiple choice selection.
Indicators are defined on the level of parameters. Based on some kind of algorithm (for instance,
string comparison, semantic distance, number of matching assigned keywords, etc.), indicators
facilitate the comparison of two terms. The indication varies as shown:
‘exact match’
‘non-exact match’
‘no match’
The likelihood that two terms are matching is calculated/assessed based on a weighted aggregation
of indications related to single parameters (termMatch + definitionMatch + contextMatch).
13
The colours are used in the Excel template developed for the collection of terminologies, for the sake of comprehensiveness the main categories are named according to the colours applied in the template
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |35
www.episecc.eu
The term indicator (termMatch)
In case of the term only two indications are possible: ‘exact match’ and ‘no match.
The definition indicator (definitionMatch)
The definition indicator is typically used to compare two definitions of the homograph term included
in two different terminologies. The definition indicator is an assembly of seven parameters all
belonging to the definition category. Only parameters belonging to the “multiple choice selection
schemes” are used.
A detailed description of the definition indicator can be found in Annex D.
The context indicator (contextMatch)
The context indicator is typically used in order to compare the scopes of two terminologies. The
context indicator is an assembly of five parameters, two belonging to the yellow (Intended User) and
three to the green category parameters group (Intended Domain). Only parameters belonging to the
“multiple choice selection schemes” are used. A detailed description of the Context Indicator can be
found in Annex C.
Collection of informative references (A2)
The purpose of the collection of references is twofold:
1. to give an overview on the sources of terminologies included in the document and used to
apply the developed methodology to analyse context and compare definitions
2. to give additional background information to the reader
The references can be found in Annex E and are structured according to the above mentioned
purposes.
Data analysis – categories of parameters (A3)
According to the categorisation described in section 4.1 it is necessary to set up multiple choice
selections for the categories definition (blue category) and the context (intended user group (yellow
group), intended area of application (green category) and source (grey category). This approach is
necessary to allow further and extended search and filter modes to support the intended user groups
of the CWA output.
Blue category parameters (definition):
Following a modified model of discourse parsing (resp. clause analysis), the different properties of
the definition were identified and became subject to the further abstraction via the drop down
options as outlined below. As subject, the type of organisation and/or the scenario of application
were identified; implicitly only one predicate or statement about the subject is regarded as necessary
in the first place: the relative effect being positive, negative, or neutral.
Several objects were identified and could be transferred to the general or meta-termini as explained
below. In addition to this basic frame additional categories indicate modal, local and temporal
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |36
www.episecc.eu
properties of the definition. They aim at the range of escalation, the type of region and the specific
phase relevant for the use of the term/the signified (following Saussure14).
To estimate the level of discrimination and/or matching of equal terms e.g. from different sources,
the following sub-categories (parameters) were identified for the specifics of the definitions to
additionally frame the terms. The multiple choice selections for each of the parameters are given in
Annex D:
type of organisation
phase
range of escalation
scenario of application
objects
effects
type of geographical area
Yellow category parameters (intended user group):
The following sub-categories are defined to specify the intended user group:
type of organisation
type of geographical area
The multiple choice selections for both categories are given in the Annex D (the multiple choices are
the same as for the blue categories: type of organisation and type of geographical area).
Green category parameters (intended domain of application):
The following sub-categories are defined to specify the intended domain of application:
phase
range of escalation
scenario of application
The multiple choice selections for all categories are given in the Annex D (the multiple choices are the
same as for the blue categories for all sub-categories).
Grey category parameters (source of term and definition):
The following sub-category is defined to specify the source of term and definition:
Type of organisation.
The multiple choice selection is given in the Annex D (the multiple choice is the same as for the blue
categories for the type of organisation).
14
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours in Literary Theory: An Anthology ed. by Michael Ryan and Julie Rivkin. Blackwell Publishers. 2001.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |37
www.episecc.eu
Annex B – Example comparisons of terms and sources
Example comparison “Emergency Management”
In Table 5 the example of the different definitions of emergency management according to the
sources of the ISO 22300 and the UNISDR 2015 are elaborated. Relevant differences and partial
overlaps are relevant in the categories of Phase, range of escalation and objects. They underpin the
potential misunderstandings and thus the importance of a common understanding and language
supported by the CWA-outputs.
Table 5: Exemplary exercise of the definitions for the term “Emergency Management”
Document ISO 22300 UNISDR 2015
Term Emergency Management Emergency Management
Definition Overall approach
preventing and managing
emergencies that might
occur
The organization and management of resources and
responsibilities for addressing all aspects of
emergencies and effectively respond to hazardous
event or disaster
Type of
organisation
Not specified Not specified
Phase Prevention & response
(managing)
Prevention and preparation
Range of
escalation
Emergency Emergency and disaster
Scenario of
Application
Not specified (all possible) Not specified (all possible)
Objects Concept (assisting) All categories (resources and responsibilities)
Effect Positive Positive
Type of
region
Not specified Not specified
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |38
www.episecc.eu
Calculation of the definition indicator for the definitions of the term “Emergency Management”
Based on the methodology defined in chapter 4.1, the similarity between the definitions from the
term “Emergency Management” from ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015 is calculated. Table 6 gives an
overview on the different parameters and the allocated values in order to illustrate how the Indicator
is calculated. A definition indicator of 0.875 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.57 the
Adjusted Definition Indicator becomes 0.5 (the last two parameters are not shown in the table).
Table 6: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator
DfOrg w1 DfPha w2 Dfesc w3 Dfsce w4 Dfobj w5 Dfeff w6 Dfreg w7 DefInd
0 0 0.5 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.875
The text below illustrates the method to allocate values to the parameters of the Definition Indicator
in order to demonstrate the application of the Indicator.
A type of organisation (subject) is “not specified” in both definitions. Accordingly, the
weighting factor w1 has to be set to 0.
Two phases (of the disaster management cycle) are specified in both terminologies, the
common option from the multiple choice selection is “prevention”. This implies that rule II
(two selected choices of a parameter for one or both terminologies) has to be applied,
because one of the two selected options is the same for both terminologies, i.e. terms.
Therefore the value 0.5 is assigned to Dfpha.
Ranges of escalations are specified in both definitions. In one case two choices (emergency,
disaster); in the second case one choice (emergency) is valid. Therefore rule I has to be
applied, the value 1 is assigned to Dfesc.
A scenario of application is “not specified” in both definitions. Accordingly, the weighting
factor w4 has to be set to 0.
Objects are specified in both definitions. In one case all choices (all categories), in the second
case one choice (concept) is valid. Therefore rule I has to be applied, the value 1 is assigned
to Dfobj.
An effect is specified in both definitions (positive). Therefore rule I has to be applied, the
value 1 is assigned to Dfeff.
A geographical area is “not specified” in both definitions. Accordingly, the weighting factor
w7 has to be set to 0.
Three out of seven weighting factors have to be set to 0 due to lack of specification of the
respective parameters. The sum of the remaining weighting parameters must be 1. An equal
weight for the four parameters is selected. This leads to a value of 0.25 for w2, w3, w5 and w6.
Applying the formula from chapter Annex C for the DefInd leads to a value of 0.875.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |39
www.episecc.eu
Four out of seven sub-parameters are specified leading to a Specification Degree of 0.57
according to table 4.
The adjusted definition indicator ADefInd is therefore 0.5.
Example of the comparison for the term “Hazard”
Another example with obvious differences on the level of concreteness is the description and
definition of the term “hazard” described by ISO 22300, SDSIE 2017, and in UNISDR 2015 that can be
seen in Table 7.
Table 7: Exemplary exercise of the definition complex for the term of hazard
Document UNISDR 2015 SDSIE 2017 ISO 22300
Term Hazard Hazard Hazard
Definition A potentially damaging physical
event, phenomenon or human
activity, which may cause the
loss of life or injury, property
damage, social and economic
disruption or environmental
degradation
Source of danger of
natural, endogenous or
pandemic nature and not
provoked by any
intentional human action
Source of
potential harm
Type of
organisation
Not specified Not specified Not specified
Phase Response (onset)
or
Not specified
Not specified (or response
(onset))
Not specified (or
response
(onset))
Range of
escalation
Not specified (both possible) Not specified (both
possible)
Not specified
(both possible)
Scenario of
Application
Not specified (all possible) Geo, Met, Fire, health (not
human)
Not specified (all
possible)
Objects Groups of persons,
infrastructure
Not specified Not specified
Effect Negative Negative Negative
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |40
www.episecc.eu
Type of
region
Not specified Not specified Not specified
Calculation of the definition indicator for the definitions of the term “Hazard”
Based on the methodology defined in 4.1, the similarity between the definitions from the term
“hazard” from ISO 22300, SDSIE 2017 and UNISDR 2015 is calculated. Table 8 gives an overview on
the different parameters and the allocated values in order to illustrate how the indicator is
calculated. A definition indicator of 1 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.14 the
Adjusted Definition Indicator becomes 0.14 (the last two parameters are not shown in the table).
Table 8: Overview on parameters of the definition indicator for the term “Hazard” from ISO22300 and SDSIE 2017
DfOrg w1 DfPha w2 Dfesc w3 Dfsce w4 Dfobj w5 Dfeff w6 Dfreg w7 DefInd
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
The parameters of the indicator to compare the definitions from ISO 22300 with UNISDR 2015 as well
as SDSIE 2017 and UNISDR 2015 are not shown, because all parameters are the same as for the
comparisons between ISO 22300 and SDSIE 2017, leading consequently to the same indicator values.
Example of the comparison: “Ambulance” vs “Emergency Services”
By comparing the definitions of the term “Ambulance” in the TSO 2009 and a document of the
International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC “Ambulance and pre-hospital
services in risk situations 2013”), the differences and thus, the added value of the methodology and
application of the CWA are pointed out again. Taking into consideration the partially overlapping
term of emergency services as stated in the UNISDR 2015, the practical value for the end users by a
clarified definition for the terms is elaborated in Table 9.
Table 9: Exemplary exercise of the definition of “Ambulance” in comparison to “Emergency services”
Document TSO 2009 Ambulance and pre-hospital
services in risk situations
2013
UNISDR 2015
Term Ambulance Ambulance Emergency services
Definition Vehicle use to
transport
casualties
[response
An ambulance, for the
purposes of this publication,
is a locally available means of
transport
The set of specialized
agencies that have specific
responsibilities and objectives
in serving and protecting
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |41
www.episecc.eu
context];
for conveying
sick, wounded,
incapacitated,
or injured
persons
[recovery
context].
that carries, as safely and
comfortably as possible,
wounded and acutely sick
persons to a place
where they can receive the
emergency medical and/or
surgical care they need; it is
also where
the condition of these
patients is stabilized.
Transportation may be either
from the site of an
emergency to a health-care
facility or between two
health-care facilities.
people and property in
emergency situations.
Comment: Emergency
services include agencies
such as civil protection
authorities, police, fire,
ambulance, paramedic and
emergency medicine services,
Red Cross and Red Crescent
societies, and specialized
emergency units of
electricity, transportation,
communications and other
related service organizations.
Type of
organisation
Not specified Governmental, NGOs, First
responders
Governmental, NGOs, First
responders
Phase Response and
recovery
Response, recovery Recovery
Range of
escalation
Emergency
and disaster
Emergency and disaster Emergency and disaster
Scenario of
Application
Not specified
(all possible)
Not specified (all possible) Not specified (all possible)
Objects Equipment Equipment Infrastructure
Effects Positive Positive Positive
Geographical
scope
Not specified local Not specified
Based on the methodology defined in chapter 4.1, the similarity between the definitions from the
term “ambulance” from TSO 2009 and from “Ambulance and pre-hospital services in risk situations
2013” is calculated. Table 10 gives an overview on the different parameters and the allocated values
in order to illustrate how the indicator is calculated. A definition indicator of 1 is obtained, and due to
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |42
www.episecc.eu
a Specification Degree of 0.57 the Adjusted Definition Indicator becomes 0.57 (the last two
parameters are not shown in the table).
Table 10: Overview on parameters of the definition indicator for “Ambulance” from TSO 2009 and “Ambulance and pre-
hospital services 2013”
DfOrg w1 DfPha w2 Dfesc w3 Dfsce w4 Dfobj w5 Dfeff w6 Dfreg w7 DefInd
0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1
Table 11 gives an overview of the parameters and allocated values originated from the comparison of
the definitions of the term “Ambulance” from TSO 2009 and “Emergency service” from UNISDR 2015.
A definition indicator of 0.8 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.71 the Adjusted
Definition Indicator becomes 0.57 (the last two parameters are not shown in the table).
Table 11: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “Ambulance” from TSO 2009 and
“Emergency Service” from UNISDR 2015
DfOrg w1 DfPha w2 Dfesc w3 Dfsce w4 Dfobj w5 Dfeff w6 Dfreg w7 DefInd
1 0.2 0.5 0.2 1 0.2 0 0 0.5 0.2 1 0.2 0 0 0.8
Table 12 gives an overview of the parameters and allocated values originated from the comparison of
the definitions of the term “Emergency Service” from “Ambulance and pre-hospital services in risk
situations 2013” and from UNISDR 2015. A definition indicator of 0.625 is obtained, and due to a
Specification Degree of 0.57 the Adjusted Definition Indicator becomes 0.36 (the last two parameters
are not shown in the table).
Table 12: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “Emergency Service” from
“Emergency Service and pro-hospital services. 2009” and UNISDR 2015
DfOrg w1 DfPha w2 Dfesc w3 Dfsce w4 Dfobj w5 Dfeff w6 Dfreg w7 DefInd
0 0 0.5 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.625
Example of the comparison for the term “Resilience”
The comparison of the definitions of a generic term like “Resilience” given in the documents of ISO
22300, the ICRC “Ambulance and pre-hospital services in risk situations 2013” and UNISDR 2015
shows again core overlaps. On the other hand, slight yet relevant differences regarding the temporal
aspects given in the category of the phase that is addressed become obvious as Table 13 makes clear.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |43
www.episecc.eu
Table 13: Exemplary exercise of the definition of “Resilience”
Document ISO 22300 Ambulance and
pre-hospital
services in risk
situations 2013
UNISDR 2015
Term Resilience Resilience Resilience
Definition adaptive
capacity of an
organization in a
complex and
changing
environment.
Resilience is the
ability of an
organization to
manage
disruptive
related risk
is the ability of an
individual or
community to
bounce back from
an adverse event.
The ability of a system, community or
society exposed to hazards to resist,
absorb, accommodate to and recover
from the effects of a hazard in a timely
and efficient manner, including through
the preservation and restoration of its
essential basic structures and functions.
Resilience means the ability to “resile
from” or “spring back from” a shock. The
resilience of a community in respect to
any hazard or event is determined by
the degree to which the community has
the necessary resources and is capable
of organizing itself both prior to and
during times of need.
Type of
organisation
Not specified General Public General Public
Phase Response and
recovery
Response and
recovery
Preparation, response and recovery
Range of
escalation
Emergency and
disaster
Emergency and
disaster
Emergency and disaster
Scenario of
Application
Not specified
(all possible)
Not specified (all
possible)
Not specified (all possible)
Objects Concept Concept Concept
Effects Positive Positive Positive
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |44
www.episecc.eu
Geographical
scope
Not specified Not specified Not specified
Table 14 gives an overview of the parameters and allocated values originated from the comparison of
the definitions of the term “resilience” from ISO 22300 from ICRC 2015. A definition indicator of
0.875 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.57 the Adjusted Definition Indicator
becomes 0.5 (the last two parameters are not shown in the following table).
Table 14: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience” from ISO 22300 and
ICRC 2015
DfOrg w1 DfPha w2 Dfesc w3 Dfsce w4 Dfobj w5 Dfeff w6 Dfreg w7 DefInd
0 0 0.5 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.875
Table 15 gives an overview of the parameters and allocated values originated from the comparison of
the definitions of the term “resilience” from ISO 22300 and from UNISDR 2015. A definition indicator
of 0.938 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.57 the Adjusted Definition Indicator
becomes 0.53 (the last two parameters are not shown in the table).
Table 15: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience” from ISO 22300 and
UNISDR 2015
DfOrg w1 DfPha w2 Dfesc w3 Dfsce w4 Dfobj w5 Dfeff w6 Dfreg w7 DefInd
0 0 0.75 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.938
Table 16 gives an overview of the parameters and allocated values originated from the comparison of
the definitions of the term “resilience” from ICRC 2015 and from UNISDR 2015. A definition indicator
of 0.95 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.71 the Adjusted Definition Indicator
becomes 0.67 (the last two parameters are not shown in the table).
Table 16: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience” from ICRC and UNISDR
2015
DfOrg w1 DfPha w2 Dfesc w3 Dfsce w4 Dfobj w5 Dfeff w6 Dfreg w7 DefInd
0 0 0.75 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.95
Example of the comparison for the term “Vulnerability”
In addition, the following term “Vulnerability” is analysed outlining possible differences induced by
different types of organizations. While the definitions in the documents of ISO 22300, the ICRC
“Protection Policy 2008”, UNISDR 2015, and the Lexicon of UK civil protection terminology frame a
similar meaning, the difference appears mainly in the respective phase the term is regarding to as
Table 17 shows.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |45
www.episecc.eu
Table 17: Exemplary exercise of the definition of vulnerability
The comparison of the different definitions of the term “Vulnerability” leads to a variation of the
Definition Indicator between 0.8 and 1, the Adjusted Definition Indicator lays between 0.53 and 0.57.
Example of the comparison of context of ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015
By comparing the context of the scope of the ISO 22300 2012 and the purpose of the collection of
the definitions in the UNISDR 2015 (Table 18), the overlaps and differences of these contexts thus
the added value of the methodology and application of the CWA, are pointed out again.
Table 18: Exemplary exercise of the context from ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015
Document ISO 22300 2012 UNISDR 2015
Name of
context
Scope Purpose
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |46
www.episecc.eu
Context This
international
standard
contains terms
and definitions
applicable to
societal security
to establish a
common
understanding
so that
consistent terms
are used.
The purpose of this paper is to inform the open-ended
intergovernmental expert group on indicators and terminology
on past and recent work on disaster risk reduction terminology
as a contribution to the implementation of the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. The paper
outlines the history of disaster risk reduction related
terminology since 2001 and recent work facilitated by the
UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction)
based on consultations with experts, the UNISDR Scientific and
Technical Advisory Group, practitioners and partners to reach
consensus on definitions. The result is proposed updated
terminology on disaster risk reduction (August 2015) including
emerging terms used in the Sendai Framework – in particular
those terms used in the scope and global targets.
Type of
organisation
Not specified Governmental, international
Phase Not specified Not specified
Range of
escalation
Not specified Disaster
Scenario of
Application
Other (societal
security)
Not specified (many possibilities: Geo, Met, Rescue, Fire….)
Type of
region
international international
The comparison of the contexts leads to a Specification Degree SD of 0.2. The Adjusted Context
Indicator AContInd is therefore 0.2 (Table 19). These values indicate a low level of concreteness of
the terms which is understandable due to the fact that general outlines are described.
Table 19: Overview on all parameters of the context indicator
IUGOrg w1 IUGReg w2 IUGPha w3 IUGEsc w4 IUGSce w5 ContInd
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |47
www.episecc.eu
Annex C – The indicator calculation
The context indicator
The context indicator is described as:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑑 = [𝐼𝑈𝐺𝑜𝑟𝑔 ∗ 𝑤1 + 𝐼𝑈𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑔 ∗ 𝑤2 + 𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑝ℎ𝑎 ∗ 𝑤3 + 𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑒𝑠𝑐 ∗ 𝑤4 + 𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑠𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑤5]
where:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑑 Context Indicator (Value between 0 and 1, 0 = Worst Case, 1 = Best Case). The IUGx and
IDoAx (sub-) parameters are each calculated according to set of rules I to III described
below and can reach values between 0 and 1.
𝐼𝑈𝐺𝑜𝑟𝑔 Intended User Group – Type of Organisation: yellow category parameter (see Annex A,
3.a), parameter describing the degree of context similarity of the intended user group /
type of organisation.
𝐼𝑈𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑔 Intended User Group – Region (geographical area): yellow category parameter (see Annex
A, 3.a), parameter describing the degree of context similarity of the intended user group /
region.
𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑝ℎ𝑎 Intended Domain - Phase: green category parameter (see Annex A, 3.b), parameter
describing the degree of context similarity of the intended domain / phase.
𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑒𝑠𝑐 Intended Domain – Range of Escalation: green category parameter (see Annex A, 3.b),
parameter describing the degree of context similarity of the intended domain / range of
escalation.
𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑠𝑐𝑒 Intended Domain – Scenario of Application: green category parameter (see Annex A, 3.b),
parameter describing the degree of context similarity of the intended domain / scenario
of application.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |48
www.episecc.eu
𝑤𝑥 Weight for the description of a context similarity between two terminologies. The sum of all
wx must be 1. A possible pre-configuration is to set all five weighting parameters to a value of
0.2, depending on the relevance that is given to a specific IUGx or IDoAx parameter. In case if
in one or both context descriptions no information on one or more IUGx and/or IDoAx
parameters is given, the respective weighting factor needs to be set to 0 (example: no
information on the type of organisation is given). In such cases it has to be ensured that the
sum of all weighting factors is still 1, in case of equal weight of four specified sub-parameters
the remaining weighting parameters might obtain a value of 0.25 each. The higher the
number of not specified sub-parameters, the lower the specification degree gets.
Rule I. One selected choice of a parameter (e.g. Geo for IDoAsce) for one or both
terminologies
0 …. No match between any complying parameters (e.g. governmental, state), match of “not
specified” does never count.
1 …. One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first
responders as complying parameter).
In case more than 1 choices are selected for both terminologies, rule II or rule III can be
applied.
Rule II. Two selected choices of a parameter (e.g. Geo & Infra for IDoAsce) for one or
both terminologies
0 …. No match between any complying parameters (e.g. governmental, state), match of “not
specified” does never count.
0.5 …. One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first
responders as complying parameter).
1… Two complying parameters, e.g. first responders and practitioners.
In case more than 2 choices are selected for both terminologies, rule II or rule III can be
applied.
Rule III. Three or more selected choices of a parameter (e.g. Geo, Fire and Infra for
IDoAsce) for one or both terminologies
0 …. No match between any complying parameters (e.g. governmental, state), match of “not
specified” does never count.
0.5 …. One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first
responders as complying parameter).
0.75 … Two complying parameters, e.g. first responders and practitioners.
1 ……. Three or more complying parameters.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |49
www.episecc.eu
The definition indicator
The definition indicator is described as:
𝐷𝑒𝑓𝐼𝑛𝑑 = [𝐷𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑔 ∗ 𝑤1 + 𝐷𝑓𝑝ℎ𝑎 ∗ 𝑤2 + 𝐷𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑐 ∗ 𝑤3 +𝐷𝑓𝑠𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑤4 + 𝐷𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑗 ∗ 𝑤5 + 𝐷𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑓 ∗ 𝑤6
+𝐷𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑔 ∗ 𝑤7]
where:
𝐷𝑒𝑓𝐼𝑛𝑑 Definition Indicator (Value between 0 and 1, 0 = Worst Case, 1 = Best Case). The Dfx (sub-)
parameters are each calculated according to set of rules I to III described below and can
reach values between 0 and 1.
All (sub-)parameters belong to the blue category (see AnnexA, 2).
𝐷𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑔 Type of Organisation: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the type
of organisation.
𝐷𝑓𝑝ℎ𝑎 Phase (of event in disaster management cycle): parameter describing the degree of
definition similarity of the phase.
𝐷𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑐 Range of escalation: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of range of
escalation.
𝐷𝑓𝑠𝑐𝑒 Scenario of application: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the
scenario of application.
𝐷𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑗 Objects: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the object (used or
manipulated).
𝐷𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑓 Effects: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the potential effect (of
an action or an event).
𝐷𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑔 Region: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the geographical area.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |50
www.episecc.eu
𝑤𝑥 Weighting parameter for the description of a definition similarity between two definitions from
typically the same terms from different terminologies. The sum of all wx must be 1. A possible
pre-configuration is to set all seven weighting parameters to a value of 1/7, depending on the
relevance that is given to the specific Dfx parameter. In case in one or both definitions no
information on one or more Dfx parameters is given the respective weighting factor needs to
be set to 0 (example: no information on the type of organisation is given). In such cases it has
to be ensured that the sum of all weighting factors is still 1, in case of equal weight of six
specified sub-parameters the remaining weighting parameters might obtain a value of 1/6
each. The higher the number of not specified sub-parameters, the lower the specification
degree gets.
One selected choice of a parameter (e.g. Geo for Dfsce) for one or both terminologies
0 …. No match between any complying parameters (e.g. governmental, state), match of “not
specified” does never count.
1 …. One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first
responders as complying parameter).
In case more than 1 choices are selected for both terminologies, rule II or rule III can be
applied.
Rule I. Two selected choices of a parameter (e.g. Geo & Infra for Dfsce) for one or both
terminologies
0 …... No match between any complying parameters (e.g. governmental, state), match of “not
specified” does never count.
0.5 … One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first
responders as complying parameter).
1 ….…Two complying parameters, e.g. first responders and practitioners.
In case more than 2 choices are selected for both terminologies, rule II or rule III can be
applied.
Rule II. Three or more selected choices of a parameter (e.g. Geo, Fire and Infra for Dfsce)
for one or both terminologies
0 …. No match between any complying parameters (e.g. governmental, state), match of “not
specified” does never count.
0.5 …. One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first
responders as complying parameter).
0.75… Two complying parameters, e.g. first responders and practitioners.
1 ……. Three or more complying parameters.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |51
www.episecc.eu
Specification degree
The context indicator is composed out of five, the definition out of seven additive terms (see
Annex A, 2 and 3). In several cases one or both context descriptions (such as scopes) or
definitions do not contain information on all sub-parameters such as type of organisation or
degree of escalation. In such cases a comparison is not possible, the category “not specified”
has to be selected for the respective sub-parameter. The respective weighting parameter
factor has to be set to 0 (e.g., in case of no specification of a phase, “not specified” has to be
chosen out of the Dfpha categories and the weighting factor w2 has to be set to 0). The more
sub-parameters cannot be specified, the less specific the information achieved by applying the
indicator is getting. In the worst case, only one sub-parameter might be described in both
definitions or contexts. In such a case the value of the indicator might still reach a value of one
not taking into account the very limited information available for the similarity analysis.
In order to take the number of applicable sub-parameters of an indicator into account, the
specification degree is introduced. It is recommended to correct the calculated value of the
definition or context indicator by multiplying it with the specification degree to compensate for
limited available information related to a certain number of described sub-parameters.
Table 20 gives an overview of the specification degree for the context indicator.
Table 20: Specification degrees for the context indicator
No. of SP 1 2 3 4 5
SD 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
No. of SP: Number of subparameters (e.g. Range of Escalation) where information is available
in both context descriptions.
SD: Specification Degree for the correction of the context indicator.
The adjusted context indicator can then be calculated as:
𝐴𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑑 ∗ 𝑆𝐷
The following table gives an overview of the specification degree for the context indicator:
Table 21: Specification degrees for the definition indicator
No. of SP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SD 0,14 0,29 0,43 0,57 0,71 0,86 1
No. of SP: Number of sub-parameters (e.g. Range of Escalation) where information is available
in both definitions
SD: Specification Degree for the correction of the definition indicator
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |52
www.episecc.eu
The adjusted definition indicator can then be calculated as
𝐴𝐷𝑒𝑓𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝐼𝑛𝑑 ∗ 𝑆𝐷
Annex D – Predefined ranges of indicators
This section includes the multiple choice selections for all sub categories defined in Annex A.
They are listed in the order of appearance in Annex A.
Type of Organisation
The organization and managing bodies of resources and responsibilities for addressing all
aspects of emergencies and effectively respond to a hazardous event or a disaster. They can be
explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the definition and offer equivalent choice.
Preselection for multiple choice:
Governmental,
Industry / other business,
Standardisation,
Research and Education,
NGOs,
International,
General public,
First responders,
Practitioners,
Other (to be specified),
Not Specified.
Phase
The temporal or rather incident oriented location of a definition is focused on the setting of
the disaster management cycle. Different models are existing for this pattern but are basically
described as:
Prevention (mitigation),
Preparedness (resilience),
Response,
Recovery,
Other (to be specified),
Not Specified.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |53
www.episecc.eu
The term can be relevant for one, some or all of the phases. Looking at the range of application
of a terminology it might be (predominantly) developed to be applied in the response phase, to
give an example.
Range of escalation
Regarding the overall objective of the CWA, it focuses on large scale events. However, it is
highly relevant to identify terms also used for small scale incidents like common emergencies,
disasters (large scale) or other ranges of escalation. The preselection thus includes following
categories:
Emergency (small scale),
Disaster (large scale),
Other (to be specified),
Not Specified.
Again, the defined issue can be subject to one or more of the categories.
Scenario of application
To foster interoperability and facilitate a common understanding of the sub-sets of the
definition the scenarios were oriented on the code denoting the category of the subject event
of the alert message of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)15 and can also be used in the
intended domain of application.
The preselection thus includes the following:
"Geo” - Geophysical (inc. landslide),
“Met” - Meteorological (inc. flood),
“Safety” - General emergency and public safety,
“Security” - Law enforcement, military, homeland and local/private security,
“Rescue” - Rescue and recovery,
“Fire” - Fire suppression and rescue,
“Health” - Medical and public health,
“Env” - Pollution and other environmental,
“Transport” - Public and private transportation,
“Infra” - Utility, telecommunication, other non-transport infrastructure,
“CBRNE” – Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or Explosives
Other,
Not Specified.
15
Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2-os.html (last access 01.09.2017)
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |54
www.episecc.eu
Object
The definition of the relevant objects “used” or manipulated in the regarding context were
highly abstracted up to the following categories:
groups of persons,
equipment,
infrastructure,
concept.
Thus, all included units with active and passive role in the environment of the term can be
subsumed and included.
Effect
The effects in the course of this definition and specifically for further use in the selection and
information gathering process of the intended users of the CWA output can be simplified in the
following overall categories:
positive,
negative,
neutral/none.
Type of geographical area
The type of region can be defined in accordance with the above mentioned categories as:
Local,
Regional,
National,
International (EU, continent, cross border),
Other (to be specified),
Not Specified.
Sub-categories can then be expanded, e.g. the phase “Preparedness” could include training,
crisis plan preparations, evaluation, warning systems, the phae “Mitigation” could include risk
management, public education etc.
In the initial step, there is no need to create a complete tree of all possible phases at this point,
but as more examples are collected, more sub-activities will emerge. Then it is important to
realise that one term used in one phase may have a different meaning in another phase for the
same responders. For example, a HAZARD during operational response means that it is
something that is physically on site, (risk of chemical spill or explosion). In this case, we are
using the JESIP operational hazards’ list. A HAZARD in the “Preparedness phase” means
something different: it is the potential cause of disaster, which determines the type of the
emergency. In this case, we are using the WHO or the FEMA classifications.
2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |55
www.episecc.eu
Annex E – Informative references
• European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) Prieur, M. (2009).
Ethical Principles on Disaster Risk Reduction and People’s Resilience.
https://edoc.coe.int/en/environment/7166-ethical-principles-on-disaster-risk-reduction-
and-people-s-resilience.html
• HM Government. (2013). Emergency Response and Recovery Non statutory guidance
accompanying the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/25348
8/Emergency_Response_and_Recovery_5th_edition_October_2013.pdf
• IFRC CoC International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. (1991). Code of
conduct - International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Retrieved
August 22, 2017, from http://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/who-we-are/the-movement/code-of-
conduct/
• ICRC Professional standards for Protection Work 2013
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0999.pdf
• ICRC Protection Policy, IRRC, Vo. 90, No. 871 (September 2008)
• ISO 22300 Societal Security
• Larkin, G. (2001). Ethics of Teamwork in Emergency and Disaster Management - The
Centrality of Virtue. In P. Dave, S. Gupta, N. Parmar, & S. Kant (Eds.), Emergency Medical
Services and Disaster Management Jaypee Brothers Publishers, 204–217.
• Lexicon of UK civil protection terminology - version 2.1.1. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-responder-interoperability-
lexicon
• Prieur, M. (2009). Ethical Principles on Disaster Risk Reduction and People’s Resilience.
Retrieved from https://edoc.coe.int/en/environment/7166-ethical-principles-on-
disaster-risk-reduction-and-people-s-resilience.html
• SDSIE Crisis & crisis management terminology
• Tactical Situation Object (TSO) – Terminology.
• UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai Framework)