D9.1. Standardisation

Transcription

1 Establish Pan-European Information Space to Enhance security of Citizens D9.1. Standardisation Grant agreement number: Date of deliverable: Date of project start: Date of submission: Duration of project: 41 months Deliverable approved by: UNIST, DLR Lead Beneficiary: Contributing Beneficiaries: AIT IES, PSCE, UNIST

2 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

3 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.

4 Table of Content List of Tables... 6 List of Figures... 7 List of Acronyms Introduction The EPISECC project Overview of the project EPISECC results relevant for standardisation Standardisation bodies approached by the EPISECC team ETSI CEN Structure and activities of CEN TC Initiative supported by CEN TC 391 to bring EPISECC initiative to standardisation GPP Other activities Standardisation activities in the frame of EPISECC CEN Workshop on terminologies in crisis and disaster management The CEN Workshop Agreement approach The CWA initiative on terminologies in crisis and disaster management The CWA partners The first stage results of the CEN Workshop initiative Methodology Quality frame for generating and selecting definitions Context and definition analyses Exemplary outputs on analyses of context and definitions Further activities beyond the end of EPISECC Standardisation activities beyond the EPISECC horizon The CWA on terminologies in crisis and disaster management stage EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 4

5 5.3. Assessment of the feasibility of a standard on interoperability in crisis and disaster management Annex A Methodology specification and preparation (A1) Annex B Example comparisons of terms and sources Example comparison Emergency Management Example of the comparison for the term Hazard Example of the comparison: Ambulance vs Emergency Services Example of the comparison for the term Resilience Example of the comparison for the term Vulnerability Example of the comparison of context of ISO and UNISDR Annex C The indicator calculation The context indicator The definition indicator Specification degree Annex D Predefined ranges of indicators Annex E Informative references EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 5

6 List of Tables Table 1: List of published standards from CEN TC Table 2: Examples of ongoing work initiatives within CEN TC Table 3: List of partners of the CEN Workshop Initiative Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster Management Table 4: Definition categories and multiple choice selection parameters (see also Annex A) Table 5: Exemplary exercise of the definitions for the term Emergency Management Table 6: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator Table 7: Exemplary exercise of the definition complex for the term of hazard Table 8: Overview on parameters of the definition indicator for the term Hazard from ISO22300 and SDSIE Table 9: Exemplary exercise of the definition of Ambulance in comparison to Emergency services Table 10: Overview on parameters of the definition indicator for Ambulance from TSO 2009 and Ambulance and pre-hospital services Table 11: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for Ambulance from TSO 2009 and Emergency Service from UNISDR Table 12: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for Emergency Service from Emergency Service and pro-hospital services and UNISDR Table 13: Exemplary exercise of the definition of Resilience Table 14: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for resilience from ISO and ICRC Table 15: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for resilience from ISO and UNISDR Table 16: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for resilience from ICRC and UNISDR Table 17: Exemplary exercise of the definition of vulnerability Table 18: Exemplary exercise of the context from ISO and UNISDR Table 19: Overview on all parameters of the context indicator Table 20: Specification degrees for the context indicator Table 21: Specification degrees for the definition indicator EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 6

7 List of Figures Figure 1: EPISECC's identified need to fill the information interoperability standards gap above 3GPP Figure 2: Overall approach for the generation of the methodology Figure 3: Example of the outcome of an assessment overview on a standardization initiative on interoperability EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 7

8 List of Acronyms Abbreviation 4G 5G CAP CBRNe CEN CENELEC CEN TC391 CIS COCOM CWA DG DIN EC EDXL Description fourth generation of broadband cellular network technology fifth generation of broadband cellular network technology Common Alerting Protocol (OASIS standard) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive European Committee for Standardization European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization CEN Technical Committee Societal and Citizen Security Common Information Space Communication Committee CEN Workshop Agreement Directorate General German Standardisation Institute European Commission Emergency Data Exchange Language (family of OASIS standards) EMSI Emergency Management Shared Information (ISO/TR 22351:2015) EMTEL EN EPISECC ETSI EU FEMA FP7 ICRC ISO Emergency Communications European Standard Establish a Pan-European Information Space to Enhance security of Citizens European Telecommunications Standards Institute European Union Federal Emergency Management Agency Seventh Framework Programme, European Union research and development funding programme International Committee of the Red Cross International Organization for Standardization EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 8

9 JESIP LEMA LTD MC-PTT MC-VIDEO MC-Data MRP NBP NEN Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme Local Emergency Management Authority Long Term Definition Mission Critical Push-to-Talk Mission Critical Video Mission Critical Data Market Representation Partner National Broadband Plans Netherlands Standardisation Institute NG112 Next Generation 112 NGO OASIS PCG PoC RAF RTD SDSIE SKOS TC TER-CDM-THE TETRA TETRAPOL TS UK UNISDR W3C group WHO xg Non-governmental organisation Initiative of Advancing open standards for the Information Societies Programme Coordination Group Proof of Concept ResiStandAssessment Framework Research Technology and Development Service de défense de sécurité et d'intelligence économique Simple Knowledge Organization System Technical Committee Terminology for Crisis and Disaster Management Thesaurus digital professional mobile radio standard, Terrestrial Trunked Radio digital professional mobile radio standard, professional mobile radio system for closed user groups Technical Specification United Kingdom United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction The World Wide Web Consortium World Health Organization x th generation of broadband cellular network technology EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 9

10 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 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, EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 10

11 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 11

12 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 12

13 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 13

14 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 ongoing 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 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 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 "Alerting libraries", TR "Alert message content accessibility", TR "Emergency App guidelines", TS "PEMEA - Pan European Mobile Emergency Application", TS "LTD NG112 - Core elements for network independent access to emergency services", TR "Interoperability testing of core elements" EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 14

15 The only working initiative that is active around the concept of "Interoperability" is TR , but its timeline was not compatible with the lifetime of EPISECC: the first stable draft of the standard has been published on 5 th September 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 of this report 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 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 15

16 CEN/TS 16850:2015 Societal and Citizen Security Guidance for managing security in healthcare facilities EN ISO 22300:2017 Societal security - Terminology EN ISO 22301:2014 Societal security Business continuity management systems Requirements EN ISO 22311:2014 Societal security video surveillance export interoperability EN ISO 22313:2014 Societal security business continuity management systems - guidance 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 ). Table 2: Examples of ongoing work initiatives within CEN TC 391 Reference Title Forecasted voting date FprCEN/TS Societal and citizen security Guidance for the security of hazardous materials (CBRNe) in healthcare facilities prcen /TS Crisis Management Developing a strategic capability Not defined yet Not defined yet pren European CBRNe glossary pren IS Societal security Mass Evacuation Guidelines for planning pren ISO Societal security Guidelines for establishing partnering arrangements 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 16

17 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) GPP 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 28 th 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 , and maturing in the timeframe ; 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 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 17

18 Source: ESENET project Source: NATO Research Task Group Common Information Space Political Objectives Harmonised Strategy/Doctrines Aligned Operations Aligned Procedures Social and cultural Interoperability Pragmatic Interoperability Information Interoperability Data Object/Model Interoperability Protocol Interoperability Knowledge/Awareness Semantical Interoperability Syntactical Interoperability Physical Interoperability Physical Interoperability PSC Europe Forum 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 (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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 18

19 EPISECC were presented to the CAP Implementer community during the "CAP Implementers' Workshops" organised by OASIS, ITU and WMO in 2015 and On 21 st 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 Committee 2 (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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 19

20 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 CEN Workshop on terminologies in crisis and disaster management As mentioned in chapter 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 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 20

21 The CWA initiative on terminologies in crisis and disaster management On the 1 st 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 21

22 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 At this stage, a report with the outcomes will be provided to CEN 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, University of Split member, FP7 EPISECC Snjezana Knezic member Tom Flynn Saadian Technologies, member FP7 SECTOR TFC Research and Innovation Monika Buscher Lancaster University member FP7 SecInCore Jens Pottebaum, Paderborn University vice chairperson, FP7 SecInCore Christina Schäfer, member, Rainer Koch member EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 22

23 René Lindner, DIN secretariat, -- Christopher Liedtke secretariat Jean-Louis Olie, Eric Barbay French Ministry of Environment, Transport and Energy member, member -- Patricia Compard French Ministry of Interior Georgios Kolliarakis Goethe University Frankfurt member -- member -- Toni Staykova Cambridge University member FP7 ConCorde Hospitals 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 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 23

24 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 standards 3. 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 24

25 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), EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 25

26 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 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 initiative 4. 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 26

27 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 for 5. 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 intensional 6 and extensional 7 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 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 abovementioned 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 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 27

28 the quality parameters defined in chapter 4.2, a high level of reliability of the selected multiplechoice 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 28

29 Table 4: Definition categories and multiple choice selection parameters (see also Annex A) Definition Type of organisation (multiple choice) Governmental Phase (multiple choice) Industry / other business Preparation (resilience) Range of Escalation (multiple choice) Prevention (Mitigation, ris Emergency (small scale) Disaster (large scale) Scenario of Application (mutliple choice) Objects Effects Type of geografical area (multiple choice) "Geo - Geophysical (inc. landslide) positiv groups of persons Local Met - Meteorological (inc. flood) equipment negativ Regional Research and Education Response Other (to be specified) Safety - General emergency and public safety Security - Law standardisation Recovery Not Specified enforcement, military, homeland and local/private security NGOs Rescue - Rescue and recovery International Fire - Fire suppression and rescue Other (to be specified) Health - Medical and public health General public Env - Pollution and other environmental First responders Transport - Public and private transportation infrastructure concept neutral/nonenational International (EU, continent, cross border) Other (to be specified) Not Specified Practitioners Not Specified Infra - Utility, telecommunication, other non-transport infrastructure CBRNE Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives Other Not Specified 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 phases 8. 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 emergencies 9. The scenario of application was extracted from an approach that is as holistic as possible to cover all possible types of events 10. 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): January see e.g. (retrieved ) 10 see e.g. (retrieved ) EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 29

30 Terms with different definitions in one document (e.g. in regards of different local/temporal/actionrelated 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 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 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 30

31 This section gives a short overview on both activities 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 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 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 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 31

32 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 32

33 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 group 12. 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 UC EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 33

34 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 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 category 13 ), 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 34

35 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 35

36 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 Saussure 14 ). 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 36

37 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 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 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 escalation of 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 region of Not specified Not specified EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 37

38 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 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 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 Df Org w1 Df Pha w2 Df esc w3 Df sce w4 Df obj w5 Df eff w6 Df reg w7 DefInd 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 w 1 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 Df pha. 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 Df esc. A scenario of application is not specified in both definitions. Accordingly, the weighting factor w 4 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 Df obj. An effect is specified in both definitions (positive). Therefore rule I has to be applied, the value 1 is assigned to Df eff. A geographical area is not specified in both definitions. Accordingly, the weighting factor w 7 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 w 2, w 3, w 5 and w 6. Applying the formula from chapter Annex C for the DefInd leads to a value of EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 38

39 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 Term Hazard Hazard Hazard Definition A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human Source of danger of natural, endogenous or Source potential harm of activity, which may cause the loss of life or injury, property pandemic nature and not provoked by any damage, social and economic intentional human action disruption or environmental degradation 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 escalation of 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 39

40 Type region of 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 Df Org w1 Df Pha w2 Df esc w3 Df sce w4 Df obj w5 Df eff w6 Df reg w7 DefInd The parameters of the indicator to compare the definitions from ISO 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 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 An ambulance, for the purposes of this publication, The set of specialized agencies that have specific casualties [response is a locally available means of transport responsibilities and objectives in serving and protecting EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 40

41 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 Not specified Governmental, NGOs, First Governmental, NGOs, First organisation responders responders Phase Response and Response, recovery Recovery recovery Range escalation of Emergency and disaster Emergency and disaster Emergency and disaster Scenario Application of 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 41

42 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 prehospital services 2013 Df Org w1 Df Pha w2 Df esc w3 Df sce w4 Df obj w5 Df eff w6 Df reg w7 DefInd 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 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 Df Org w1 Df Pha w2 Df esc w3 Df sce w4 Df obj w5 Df eff w6 Df reg w7 DefInd 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 A definition indicator of 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 and UNISDR 2015 Df Org w1 Df Pha w2 Df esc w3 Df sce w4 Df obj w5 Df eff w6 Df reg w7 DefInd 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 42

43 Table 13: Exemplary exercise of the definition of Resilience Document ISO Ambulance and pre-hospital services in risk situations 2013 UNISDR 2015 Term Resilience Resilience Resilience Definition adaptive capacity of an is the ability of an individual or The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, organization in a complex and community to bounce back from absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely changing environment. an adverse event. and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its Resilience is the ability of an essential basic structures and functions. Resilience means the ability to resile organization to manage disruptive from or spring back from a shock. The resilience of a community in respect to any hazard or event is determined by related risk 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 Response and Preparation, response and recovery recovery recovery Range escalation of Emergency and disaster Emergency disaster and Emergency and disaster Scenario Application of Not specified (all possible) Not specified (all possible) Not specified (all possible) Objects Concept Concept Concept Effects Positive Positive Positive EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 43

44 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 from ICRC A definition indicator of 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 and ICRC 2015 Df Org w1 Df Pha w2 Df esc w3 Df sce w4 Df obj w5 Df eff w6 Df reg w7 DefInd Table 15 gives an overview of the parameters and allocated values originated from the comparison of the definitions of the term resilience from ISO and from UNISDR A definition indicator of 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 and UNISDR 2015 Df Org w1 Df Pha w2 Df esc w3 Df sce w4 Df obj w5 Df eff w6 Df reg w7 DefInd 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 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 Df Org w1 Df Pha w2 Df esc w3 Df sce w4 Df obj w5 Df eff w6 Df reg w7 DefInd 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 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 44

45 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 Example of the comparison of context of ISO and UNISDR 2015 By comparing the context of the scope of the ISO 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 and UNISDR 2015 Document ISO UNISDR 2015 Name context of Scope Purpose EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 45