-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
SC has had a chance to review, adding as accepted, no edits received from from SC.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
3f7db70
commit 566875b
Showing
1 changed file
with
111 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
111 changes: 111 additions & 0 deletions
111
SteeringCommittee/Minutes Steering Committee No. 6 - 12 July 2023
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ | ||
# Minutes of RDLS Steering Committee No.6 | ||
|
||
12 July 2023 / 09:00-10:30 EDT, 14:00-15:30 GMT / via Teams | ||
|
||
## Attendees | ||
Pierre Chrzanowski, Mattia Amadio, Stuart Fraser (GFDRR) | ||
Rachel Vint, Jen Harris (Open Data Services) | ||
|
||
**SC members:** | ||
- Paul Henshaw, GEM Foundation | ||
- Matt Donovan, ODS | ||
- Stephen Hutchings, JBA Risk Management | ||
- Tiziana Rossetto, UCL EPICentre | ||
|
||
**Others** | ||
Hamish Patten (IFRC) | ||
Justin Ginnetti (IFRC) | ||
Johanna Carter (ODS) | ||
|
||
**Agenda** | ||
1. New version of the standard | ||
2. Uses cases | ||
3. Communication and strategy plan | ||
4. AOB | ||
|
||
## Notes | ||
|
||
PH: Add a point to the agenda on the project within GEM using the RDLS | ||
|
||
Presentation of the standard by Rachel | ||
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12SSTmoacqMjYy_wMoo0Tjz4J03kcJYb1YvUnxvJlYSU/edit#slide=id.g1e280e234e2_0_13 | ||
|
||
JG: Apologizes for missing the last meeting and asking questions: | ||
Question on the Glide number | ||
Hazard taxonomy: have you considered the HIPS (UNDRR)? | ||
World Bank datasets | ||
Comms plan: who is the intended audience? | ||
|
||
SF: | ||
HIPS is very exhaustive. We tried to align with it but we use only a subset of the hazards and there were also problems for instance with the Tsunami and the trigger. There is some inconsistency there. Another issue with the drought classification. Having said that, providing a mapping would be useful and doable, so should be done. | ||
On the Glide number: We have always been able to represent scenario footprint. We have the capability to describe the name, etc. and to tie to the Glide number. We put this disaster identifier field using the Glide number. We did a review of what is used but if there is another identifier set we can add that as a top taxonomy. | ||
|
||
PH: | ||
I am not familiar with the Glide number but we could use something else like a USGS Shake Map. | ||
|
||
SF: | ||
We should provide a field that describes which identifier is being used. | ||
|
||
HP: | ||
Glide number is a disaster identified. USGS is a hazard event identifier. Glide number is quite restrictive. | ||
|
||
JG: | ||
Point was also on promoting the idea of more documentation. | ||
|
||
|
||
JC: | ||
Question on tools priority. | ||
|
||
PC: | ||
We want to develop Excel/GSpreadsheet to JSON file | ||
|
||
HP: | ||
Not only Loss and Damage but disruptions like train line disrupted but not damaged. | ||
Another question on events/periods/spatial events like cascading hazards. | ||
|
||
SF: | ||
We can describe the temporal and spatial aspect of each dataset but | ||
Yes we support non-monetary losses. We have an impact metric for disruption. | ||
You can have different footprints between hazard and the exposure. | ||
|
||
2. Uses cases | ||
|
||
PH: | ||
Project in Malawi by GEM | ||
We have road surface material not covered currently | ||
We will be proposing to extend the GEM taxonomy | ||
We need to also look at data on crops | ||
Not sure about open data in the end | ||
|
||
3. Communication plan | ||
|
||
CH: It would be nice to have a communication toolkit. It would be nice to have material so that we can present to NGOs. We should use the webinar to communicate what is coming in the next Months. | ||
|
||
SH: | ||
How do we expect different parties to use the standard. Parties like JBA and NGOs. How to get data compliant with the schema in the first place? | ||
How to achieve the single source of truth like the OED? | ||
|
||
SF: | ||
When were are talking about single of truth, we are talking about the RDLS single source like avoiding conflicts between the documentation and the JSON file. | ||
|
||
Rachel: | ||
Validation tool | ||
|
||
JG: | ||
We can provide feedback on the needs of different user groups / audiences when promoting the standard. | ||
|
||
PC: | ||
Invitation to IRFC to join the SCM | ||
|
||
**AOB** | ||
## Actions: | ||
- Provide Feedback on documentation / issues shown today / in GitHub | ||
- Respond to promotional planning when GFDRR has drafted material - share / write own | ||
- ODS/GFDRR finalising documentation next week | ||
|
||
## Proposed agenda for next meeting: | ||
Thursday 14th September: | ||
- Launch material | ||
- Update on validation tool and metadata creation tool | ||
|
||
|