D9.1. Standardisation - EPISECC · Example of the comparison: Ambulance _ vs ^Emergency Services _...

D9.1. – Standardisation

Grant agreement number: 607078 Date of deliverable: 2017-30-09

Date of project start: 2014-06-01 Date of submission: 2017-27-10

Duration of project: 41 months Deliverable approved by: UNIST, DLR

Lead Beneficiary: AIT

Contributing Beneficiaries: IES, PSCE, UNIST

Establish Pan-European Information Space to Enhance seCurity of Citizens

Executive Summary

This deliverable reports on the activities taken by the project partners in order to bring the results of

the EPISECC project into standardisation. For this purpose, the outcomes of the EPISECC project were

examined on their suitability for exploitation by standardisation. The assessments provided by the

Deliverable 9.2 were taken as basis of this analysis. It turned out that specific aspects of the EPISECC

Taxonomy as well as the concept of the common information space have the best potential for

standardisation activities (chapter 2.2).

In parallel, the project partners got in touch with relevant European standardisation organisations. As

most promising organisations CEN TC391 “Societal and Citizen Security”, ETSI, 3GPP and OASIS were

identified. Chapter 2.3 of this deliverable reports on the cooperation activities of the EPISECC team

as well as of the description of the organisations, which are potentially relevant for the purposes of

EPISECC.

We found out that the CEN TC 391 provided the best possibilities to bring outcomes of EPISECC into

standardisation. CEN offers a multitude of tools for such purposes. A relatively new approach is the

CEN Workshop Agreement providing a variety of degrees of freedom compared to other approaches

such as a New Work Item Proposal for standards. It is open to the participation for anyone, has no

geographical limit on participation and is comparatively fast and flexible. The report arising from a

CEN Workshop Agreement does not have the status of a standard and involves no obligations on

national level. Considering the time limitations of a European research project, the EPISECC team

launched a CWA on terminologies in crisis and disaster management supported by CEN TC 391.

This initiative was not only driven by EPISECC, but it was also supported by the FP7 projects

SecInCore, SECTOR and ConCorde. It is also a major outcome of the long-lasting cooperation of the

interoperability projects EPISECC, SEcInCore, SECTOR and Redirnet. Due to the open structure of a

CEN Workshop several partners not being member of one of the above-mentioned projects such as

the French Ministry of Environment, Transport and Energy or the Goethe University Frankfurt

supported the initiative as well. The German Standardisation Organisation (DIN) took over the

position of secretariat of the action.

The basic idea of the CEN Workshop is to provide a thesaurus on international terminologies applied

in crisis and disaster management. The first main objective is to give to practitioners and other

stakeholders the possibility to see at a glance different definitions from the same terms taken from

the relevant terminologies which are applied nowadays. Having such an opportunity available, it can

be expected that the degree of mutual misunderstanding in cross-border disaster management will

decrease in long terms. The intention of the CEN Workshop is neither to develop an own terminology

nor to judge the quality of any terminology. Actually, the initiative aims at establishing a common

understanding of concepts by providing their terms and specific definitions from different sources

and thereby considering different characteristics from various countries or types of organisations.

The initiative goes beyond heuristic comparisons of terminologies. Therefore, the second objective is

to provide methods for systematic analysis on the degree of semantic similarities between concepts

having same terms. In order to make such analysis possible, guiding questions to analyse concepts’

definitions such as type of organisation involved, range of escalation of an event or scenario of

application of a term (e.g. meteorological disaster) with multiple choice selections were developed

making comparisons of key parameters of definitions possible. In addition, an indicator to quantify

the degree of similarity of definitions was set up. Moreover, a methodology to analyse the

relatedness of the context (e.g. defined in the scope of a document) of terminologies was established

as well. Several examples of analysis were undertaken and reported. The outcome of the CEN

Workshop initiative is given in chapter 4 as well as the annexes of this deliverable.

Taking the duration of standardisation activities into account, it becomes evident that

standardisation activities on semantic and syntactical interoperability beyond the end of EPISECC

need to take place. Chapter 5 of deliverable 9.1 gives an overview on these activities. On the one

hand, a second stage of the CEN Workshop Agreement is currently initiated allowing extension of the

database of terminologies among other goals. This second stage will be supported by the FP7 project

DRIVER+. On the other hand, looking at the second outcome of the EPISECC project suitable for

standardisation, it was so far not possible to identify ongoing standardisation suitable activities to

bring the interoperability concepts to standardisation. EPISECC started therefore a feasibility

assessment of a standard on interoperability in crisis and disaster management supported by the

Dutch and German standardisation organisations (NED and DIN). For this purpose, EPISECC uses the

ResiStand Assessment Framework (RAF) recently provided by the H2020 project ResiStand.

2017-10-27 EPISECC_WP9_D9.1 Standardisation 55 |4

www.episecc.eu

Table of Content

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 6

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 7

List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 8

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10

2. The EPISECC project....................................................................................................................... 10

2.1. Overview of the project ......................................................................................................... 10

2.2. EPISECC results relevant for standardisation ......................................................................... 13

2.3. Standardisation bodies approached by the EPISECC team .................................................... 14

2.3.1. ETSI ................................................................................................................................ 14

2.3.2. CEN ................................................................................................................................ 15

2.3.2.1. Structure and activities of CEN TC 391 .......................................................................... 15

2.3.2.2. Initiative supported by CEN TC 391 to bring EPISECC initiative to standardisation ...... 17

2.3.3. 3GPP .............................................................................................................................. 17

2.4. Other activities ....................................................................................................................... 18

3. Standardisation activities in the frame of EPISECC ....................................................................... 20

3.1. CEN Workshop on terminologies in crisis and disaster management ................................... 20

3.1.1. The CEN Workshop Agreement approach ..................................................................... 20

3.1.2. The CWA initiative on terminologies in crisis and disaster management ..................... 21

3.1.3. The CWA partners ......................................................................................................... 22

4. The first stage results of the CEN Workshop initiative .................................................................. 23

4.1. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 23

4.2. Quality frame for generating and selecting definitions ......................................................... 26

4.3. Context and definition analyses............................................................................................. 27

4.4. Exemplary outputs on analyses of context and definitions ................................................... 30

5. Further activities beyond the end of EPISECC ............................................................................... 30

5.1. Standardisation activities beyond the EPISECC horizon ........................................................ 30

5.2. The CWA on terminologies in crisis and disaster management – stage 2 ............................. 31

http://www.episecc.eu/


www.episecc.eu

5.3. Assessment of the feasibility of a standard on interoperability in crisis and disaster

management ......................................................................................................................................... 31

Annex A – Methodology specification and preparation (A1) ........................................................... 33

Annex B – Example comparisons of terms and sources ................................................................... 37

Example comparison “Emergency Management” ................................................................................ 37

Example of the comparison for the term “Hazard” .............................................................................. 39

Example of the comparison: “Ambulance” vs “Emergency Services” ................................................... 40

Example of the comparison for the term “Resilience”.......................................................................... 42

Example of the comparison for the term “Vulnerability” ..................................................................... 44

Example of the comparison of context of ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015 .............................................. 45

Annex C – The indicator calculation ................................................................................................... 47

The context indicator ............................................................................................................................ 47

The definition indicator ......................................................................................................................... 49

Specification degree .............................................................................................................................. 51

Annex D – Predefined ranges of indicators........................................................................................ 52

Annex E – Informative references ...................................................................................................... 55



www.episecc.eu

List of Tables

Table 1: List of published standards from CEN TC 391 .......................................................................... 15

Table 2: Examples of ongoing work initiatives within CEN TC 391....................................................... 16

Table 3: List of partners of the CEN Workshop Initiative Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster

Management ......................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 4: Definition categories and multiple choice selection parameters (see also Annex A) ............. 29

Table 5: Exemplary exercise of the definitions for the term “Emergency Management” .................... 37

Table 6: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator .......................................................... 38

Table 7: Exemplary exercise of the definition complex for the term of hazard .................................... 39

Table 8: Overview on parameters of the definition indicator for the term “Hazard” from ISO22300

and SDSIE 2017 ...................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 9: Exemplary exercise of the definition of “Ambulance” in comparison to “Emergency services”

............................................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 10: Overview on parameters of the definition indicator for “Ambulance” from TSO 2009 and

“Ambulance and pre-hospital services 2013” ....................................................................................... 42

Table 11: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “Ambulance”

from TSO 2009 and “Emergency Service” from UNISDR 2015 .............................................................. 42

Table 12: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “Emergency

Service” from “Emergency Service and pro-hospital services. 2009” and UNISDR 2015 ..................... 42

Table 13: Exemplary exercise of the definition of “Resilience” ............................................................ 43

Table 14: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience”

from ISO 22300 and ICRC 2015 ............................................................................................................. 44


from ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015 ........................................................................................................ 44


from ICRC and UNISDR 2015 ................................................................................................................. 44

Table 17: Exemplary exercise of the definition of vulnerability ............................................................ 45

Table 18: Exemplary exercise of the context from ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015 ................................. 45

Table 19: Overview on all parameters of the context indicator ........................................................... 46

Table 20: Specification degrees for the context indicator .................................................................... 51

Table 21: Specification degrees for the definition indicator ................................................................. 51



www.episecc.eu

List of Figures

Figure 1: EPISECC's identified need to fill the information interoperability standards gap above 3GPP

............................................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2: Overall approach for the generation of the methodology ..................................................... 25

Figure 3: Example of the outcome of an assessment overview on a standardization initiative on

interoperability ...................................................................................................................................... 32



www.episecc.eu

List of Acronyms

Abbreviation Description

4G fourth generation of broadband cellular network technology

5G fifth generation of broadband cellular network technology

CAP Common Alerting Protocol (OASIS standard)

CBRNe Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive

CEN European Committee for Standardization

CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

CEN TC391 CEN Technical Committee “Societal and Citizen Security”

CIS Common Information Space

COCOM Communication Committee

CWA CEN Workshop Agreement

DG Directorate General

DIN German Standardisation Institute

EC European Commission

EDXL Emergency Data Exchange Language (family of OASIS standards)

EMSI Emergency Management Shared Information (ISO/TR 22351:2015)

EMTEL Emergency Communications

EN European Standard

EPISECC Establish a Pan-European Information Space to Enhance seCurity of Citizens

ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute

EU European Union

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FP7 Seventh Framework Programme, European Union research and development

funding programme

ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross

ISO International Organization for Standardization



www.episecc.eu

JESIP Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme

LEMA Local Emergency Management Authority

LTD Long Term Definition

MC-PTT Mission Critical Push-to-Talk

MC-VIDEO Mission Critical Video

MC-Data Mission Critical Data

MRP Market Representation Partner

NBP National Broadband Plans

NEN Netherlands Standardisation Institute

NG112 Next Generation 112

NGO Non-governmental organisation

OASIS Initiative of Advancing open standards for the Information Societies

PCG Programme Coordination Group

PoC Proof of Concept

RAF ResiStandAssessment Framework

RTD Research Technology and Development

SDSIE Service de défense de sécurité et d'intelligence économique

SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System

TC Technical Committee

TER-CDM-THE Terminology for Crisis and Disaster Management Thesaurus

TETRA digital professional mobile radio standard, Terrestrial Trunked Radio

TETRAPOL digital professional mobile radio standard, professional mobile radio system for

closed user groups

TS Technical Specification

UK United Kingdom

UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

W3C group The World Wide Web Consortium

WHO World Health Organization

xG x´th generation of broadband cellular network technology



www.episecc.eu

1. Introduction

This deliverable provides an overview on the standardisation activities of EPISECC. First, the

outcomes of EPISECC potentially relevant for standardisation activities are identified:

the concept of the Common Information Space,

the EPISECC taxonomy and related aspects.

Several international organisations were approached in order to bring the results of EPISECC to

standardisation. Therefore, an overview on both approached organisations and related activities are

given.

It turned out that a CEN Workshop Agreement is the best suitable tool to bring forward outcomes

from EPISECC on taxonomy. Both newly developed analytic methods as well as their application on

reference terminologies of crisis and disaster management are included in this deliverable. The CEN

Workshop initiative involves also participating stakeholders such as authorities, standardisation and

research organisations in extension to the EPISECC partners.

This deliverable concludes with a short description of standardisation activities that are based on the

outcomes of EPISECC and will continue after closing of the project.

2. The EPISECC project

The imperative goal of the FP7 project EPISECC is the development of an integrated pan-European

crisis and disaster response capacity. For this purpose, a Common Information Space concept was

created and validated in a border crossing proof of concept. EPISECC aims also at bringing its results

to standardisation. This chapter gives first an overview on the project, the outcomes of EPISECC

suitable for standardisation and finally a description of the various initiatives of the project team

towards international standardisation bodies.

2.1. Overview of the project

A statement from the World Disaster Report from 2005 reflects perfectly the motivation for the project EPISECC:

“Disaster affected people need information as much as water, food, medicine or shelter: accurate, timely information can save lives. The right information helps aid organizations to understand better the needs of affected communities and ways to meet those needs. Today's information technology presents new possibilities, but has not been fully exploited by humanitarian organization. Lack of information can make people victims of disaster.”1

1 World Disaster Report 2005, International Federation of Red Cross, 2005.



www.episecc.eu

Efficient communication and access to critical information are key requirements for the operations of

public safety and security services in emergencies as well as disasters. Inter-connectedness and

cooperation between different rescue teams are imperative requirements in order to save lives and

protect assets. However, the communication capabilities are often compromised or destroyed, either

by the catastrophe itself or its aftermath. In such cases, new communication systems must be

deployed to re-establish communication.

The first phase of disaster response always requires good situational awareness to define the most

urgent needs. In a big disaster like an earthquake or big flooding, rescue teams from different entities

(e.g. civil protection, fire brigades, police, medical emergency service) and different countries have to

collaborate. These teams use different IT systems, terminologies, technologies and protocols for

communication. For instance, in case of voice communication they may use digital radios based on

the digital professional mobile radio standards (such as TETRA or TETRAPOL) or they may use satellite

phones when no communication infrastructure is available any longer. These technologies allow a

communication between the team members and their control centre, whereas direct communication

between different entities from different countries is very difficult or even impossible.

The access to and sharing of information are crucial for a better situational awareness. Such

information comprises:

static background information like maps;

dynamic information from technical institutes like weather forecast;

dynamic information from infrastructure providers like information on power availability;

dynamic information from civil protection and emergency management agencies like aerial

photographs, available capacities, position of resources, information about needs, incidents,

tasks, relieve goods and so on;

dynamic information from the population itself, which can be retrieved via crowd-sourcing or social media.

EPISECC has been organised around the following concepts:

analysing the past major European emergencies and disasters in order to identify main

shortcomings of currently used data sets, the daily information management tools and

processes, the way of integration into crisis management procedures and the information

systems used by first responders and police authorities;

raising awareness of and advocating for the use of a modern information management and

communication technologies by first responders and policy authorities;

assisting the development of the rapidly evolving European policy in the area of security, civil

protection and humanitarian aid;

reducing the vulnerabilities and increasing resilience of European societies against security

risks, natural disasters and crisis.

The final goal of the EPISECC project is to create an integrated pan-European crisis and disaster

response capacity. A Common Information Space (CIS) design is the integral part of these joint

initiatives and the outcome will definitely contribute to the “de-fragmentation” process.



www.episecc.eu

The comprehensive architecture of a “CIS” provided by the EPISECC project, including crisis and

disaster management processes, tools and procedures, guidelines for first responders and policy

makers, represents potential input to future standards or other tools provided by standardisation

organisations, which will be used by public authorities, international organisations and civil society.

The EPISECC project, with the CIS, will strengthen and improve the effectiveness and adequacy of

emergency and disaster response in Europe and beyond, which in turn has potential benefit on

several areas like ICT, quality of information, partnership, field level coordination, involvement of the

industry, preparedness, the security and safety of citizens and security forces.



www.episecc.eu

2.2. EPISECC results relevant for standardisation

According to deliverable 9.2 “Exploitation & Service Provisioning concept (first release)”, EPISECC

produced five main outcomes:

the EPISECC Common Information Space (CIS),

the EPISECC Adaptation Services,

the EPISECC Semantic Service,

the EPISECC Semantic Repository,

the EPISECC Inventory Service.

The CIS is the main result of the project, and also the main outcome relevant for standardisation: it

represents the virtual space through which organisations can share information and exchange data in

order to have a comprehensive situational awareness, even if they belong to different types of

organisations and/or if they speak different languages. Within the CIS, data is transferred using an

EDXL format. Organisations require an adaptor converting the data they want to share (potentially

described with a different protocol by their legacy systems), to EDXL, and vice versa in case the

organisation is receiving information. The adaptor can be seen as communication link between a

participating organisation and the CIS; using an adaptor is the only way accessing to the Common

Information Space. The concept of the CIS is relevant to be brought as new proposal to international

standardisation bodies.

The CIS allows that terms and concepts are shared between organisations that speak different

languages or use different wording with same or similar meaning. To deal with this problem, a

semantic service was developed matching different terms used by different organisations for same or

semantically similar concepts. This service is based on the EPISECC Semantic Repository, containing

EPISECC Taxonomy and different semantic structures having concepts defined by international

standards (such as EMSI) or by practitioners' organisations. The semantic service can also be used

independently from the CIS, i.e. any organisation that interacts with another organisation that uses a

different terminology or language can benefit from it. Exchanging information with multiple

stakeholders and practitioners and cooperation with CEN revealed that the first step for further

standardisation activities was to compare and analyse terms and their definitions from different

terminologies applied in the domain of crisis and disaster management. Therefore, a CEN Workshop

Agreement was initiated accordingly (see chapter 4.1 of this deliverable).

Finally, the EPISECC project has developed an Inventory of past disasters, focussing on the efficiency

of interoperability (e.g. percentage of data exchanged from an organisation to another, percentage

of understood data), standard operational procedures as well as measures that have been performed

in the response phase. This inventory is a useful source of information for research institutes that

wants to examine gaps, needs and best practice to further investigations on how to improve disaster

management procedures, in order to bring a benefit to the whole community. However, no need was

identified to bring the inventory or its concept to international standardisation.



www.episecc.eu

2.3. Standardisation bodies approached by the EPISECC team

Since its very inception, EPISECC has considered standards as the backbone of the Common

Information Space. At the time of the project preparation a number of active organisations and

promising standards were identified, namely ISO/CEN, ETSI/EMTEL and OASIS.

During the project execution, the members of EPISECC built the CIS according to the current and on-

going initiatives of those standardisation organisations, and looked for constructive ways for

contributing to the standards with the results of the project RTD activities and with the lesson learnt

from the project PoC.

It is a fact that the time needed for proposing a standard and getting it drafted, discussed and

approved is hardly compatible with the limited lifetime of an EC project. EPISECC decided to adopt

different strategies with the three standardisation organisations mentioned above, managing to

launch and complete a standardisation initiative (namely a CWA) with the CEN.

In this section of the report, the initiatives of EPISECC towards standardisation bodies are described.

2.3.1. ETSI

The activities of ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) have been a natural

reference for EPISECC, given the specific activities that the EMTEL (Emergency Communications)

Special committee carries over.

During the lifetime of EPISECC, ETSI has been defining the user requirements for the four main areas

of emergency communications:

communication from citizens to authorities/organizations (emergency calls),

communication between authorities/organizations (public safety communications),

communication from authorities/organizations to citizens (warning systems),

communication amongst citizens during emergencies.

The activity most relevant for EPISECC was of course "communication between

authorities/organizations", covered by the ETSI TS 102 181 Technical Specification.

Alongside the same aim of making the communications between authorities more efficient while

keeping them based on standards, there is a number of working initiatives that are partly relevant for

EPISECC:

TR 103 273 "Alerting libraries",

TR 103 335 "Alert message content accessibility",

TR 103 390 "Emergency App guidelines",

TS 103 478 "PEMEA - Pan European Mobile Emergency Application",

TS 103 479 "LTD NG112 - Core elements for network independent access to emergency

services",

TR 103 480 "Interoperability testing of core elements".



www.episecc.eu

The only working initiative that is active around the concept of "Interoperability" is TR 103 480, but

its timeline was not compatible with the lifetime of EPISECC: the first stable draft of the standard has

been published on 5th September 2017.

IES and FREQUENTIS, partners of EPISECC, were the initiators of the work on the LTD (Long Term

Definition) document for the architecture defined as "Next Generation 112" (in brief NG112).

Other initiatives pertaining to ETSI are those arranged around the 3GPP and is covered in chapter

2.3.3 of this report.

2.3.2. CEN

In the context of crisis management it turned out that the Technical Committee CEN TC391 “Societal

and Citizen Security” of CEN is the relevant focus point for EPISECC. Therefore, the EPISECC team

approached the mentioned TC in order to identify standardisation activities relevant for EPISECC. The

best possible way to be involved in the activities of a technical committee of CEN is to become

national delegate. For this purpose, Dr Georg Neubauer was sent by the Austrian Standardisation

Committee as national delegate to the meetings of TC 391. The main outcomes of EPISECC relevant

for standardisation are the concept of the Common Information Space on the one hand and the

taxonomy and related aspects on the other. The purpose of the initiative was to identify if one or

both results of EPISECC can be brought into European standardisation via CEN TC 391.

2.3.2.1. Structure and activities of CEN TC 391

Looking at the focus TC 391 “Societal and Citizen Security”, aspects such as prevention, response,

mitigation, continuity and recovery before, during and after destabilising or disruptive events as well

as verification and training are covered. TC 391 focuses its standardisation activities on the following

main issues:

product and services (e.g. equipment, communication or information),

infrastructures (e.g. airports, ports, railway),

relationships and citizen requirements and vulnerabilities.

Currently three working groups are active within TC 391:

WG1: Healthcare facilities,

WG2: CBRNe,

WG3: Crisis management/civil protection.

Table 1 gives an overview on recent published standards from TC 391.

Table 1: List of published standards from CEN TC 391

Reference Title Publication date

CEN/TS 16595:2013 CBRN – Vulnerability

Assessment and Protection of

People at Risk

2013-09-04



www.episecc.eu

CEN/TS 16850:2015 Societal and Citizen Security –

Guidance for managing

security in healthcare facilities

2015-09-16

EN ISO 22300:2017 Societal security - Terminology 2017-07-18

EN ISO 22301:2014 Societal security – Business

continuity management

systems – Requirements

2014-07-23

EN ISO 22311:2014 Societal security – video

surveillance – export

interoperability

2014-11-05

EN ISO 22313:2014 Societal security – business

continuity management

systems - guidance

2014-11-05

In the frame of TC 391 there are several other ongoing actions in addition to the already published

documents. Table 2 gives an overview on them (status 2017-10-10).

Table 2: Examples of ongoing work initiatives within CEN TC 391

Reference Title Forecasted voting date

FprCEN/TS 17159 Societal and citizen security –

Guidance for the security of

hazardous materials (CBRNe)

in healthcare facilities

Not defined yet

prCEN /TS 17091 Crisis Management –

Developing a strategic

capability

Not defined yet

prEN 17173 European CBRNe glossary 2018-09-18

prEN IS0 22315 Societal security – Mass

Evacuation – Guidelines for

planning

2018-02-22

prEN ISO 22397 Societal security – Guidelines

for establishing partnering

arrangements

2018-02-22

It turned out that the activities of WG3 are very close to the scope of EPISECC. Therefore, main

involvement was established in WG3 of TC 391.



www.episecc.eu

2.3.2.2. Initiative supported by CEN TC 391 to bring EPISECC initiative to standardisation

The involvement in the activities of CEN TC 391 revealed that the best option to bring EPISECC

outcomes to standardisation was to launch a CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) on terminologies in

crisis and disaster management. The outcome of such an initiative shall serve as basis for future

standardisation activities related to taxonomy in crisis and disaster management. Therefore, CEN TC

391 supported the initiation of the mentioned CWA. Before final submission, the CEN/TC 391 will

receive the report for consideration (for more details see chapter 4.1 of this report).

2.3.3. 3GPP

In October 2016, PSCE became a Market Representation Partner (MRP) of 3GPP. It is well known that

public safety communication users will transition to use broadband mobile technology in the

upcoming years. Public safety communication stakeholders have been busy defining the standards

for Mission Critical Push-to-Talk (MC-PTT), Video (MC-VIDEO) and Data (MC-Data). The standards to

be put in place for broadband communications should enable also the information interoperability.

Therefore, informing 3GPP on possible needs and tools that will establish the CIS is a prerequisite.

On 28th September 2017, PSCE presented the status of the EPISECC project, which can build upon this

foundation. MC-Data builds upon the 4G/5G standards defined by 3GPP to provide a highly reliable

data service. EPISECC activity was presented to the 3GPP Programme Coordination Group (PCG)

along with several other projects to identify the weight of need to enhance the standards above

3GPP MC-services. Figure 1 illustrates the scope of the standardisation gap identified and presented

to 3GPP.

The PCG is the highest decision making body of 3GPP. PSCE is a Market Representation Partner

(MRP) of 3GPP and regularly attends this meeting. Three clear messages were delivered:

Procurement of new broadband capabilities for public safety will be growing in the

timeframe 2020-2025, and maturing in the timeframe 2025-2030;

Mission critical public safety broadband capability should remain a core focus, as the

progress is made to standardise 5G and beyond. Mission Critical standardisation should not

be put to the side because of the swell of commercial interest in new G’s. Mission Critical

standardisation should remain a strong and core element of future 5G, 6G, xG standards;

There is a significant gap regarding the informational interoperability, for which discussion is

needed to define the steps forward, and the appropriate standardisation bodies to be

involved.

In support of this activity, PSCE is also working with FirstNet in the US, to bring together critical

international mass of those who intend to procure new broadband capabilities across the world. A

series of regular meetings of key stakeholders around the world is planned, following from FirstNet’s

initialisation of this activity last year. An initial meeting will be held alongside PSCE’s conference in

Madrid in November 2017, followed by a global meeting in May 2018.

Such critical mass is considered essential to ensure that the global standards and technologies are

aligned and ready for the public safety community in order to procure the solutions that they need.



www.episecc.eu

Figure 1: EPISECC's identified need to fill the information interoperability standards gap above 3GPP

2.4. Other activities

Currently, there are no specific activities in the frame of CEN TC 391 that are suitable to bring the

concept of a common information space to standardisation (see Table 2). In addition, in other

standardisation bodies, no activities related to interoperability in crisis and disaster management on

syntactical and semantic level were identified. In order to assess the feasibility of such a

standardisation initiative, the EPISECC team started a pre-standardisation assessment process

supported by the German and the Dutch standardisation committees (for more details see chapter

5.2 of this report).

Conversely, the publication of the CEN TC 223 (Societal Security, Emergency Management) Technical

Report TR 22351 (Message structure for exchange of information) was relevant for EPISECC because

it inherited the TSO pre-standard, considered by the project partners as one of the possible formats

for the message payload. In addition, the report 22320:2011 (Requirements for incident response)

was taken into account while designing the CIS for EPISECC.

Another important standardisation activity EPISECC was working with the OASIS initiative (Advancing

open standards for the Information Societies). OASIS is the organisation that developed and

promulgated the CAP and the EDXL-family of standards, both identified by EPISECC as the most

promising and flexible formats for information interoperability in disasters and emergency situations.

IES, one of the partners of EPISECC, worked in the Emergency Management Technical Committee of

OASIS for the entire duration of the project, acting both as provider of "first hand" information to the

consortium (in particular about the interpretation of some nuances of the standards and as "feeder"

to OASIS regarding the developments carried out in EPISECC). The intermediate and final results of

©PSCEuropeForum2017

Source:ESENETproject

PoliticalObjectives

HarmonisedStrategy/Doctrines

AlignedOperations

AlignedProcedures

DataObject/ModelInteroperability

InformationInteroperability

ProtocolInteroperability

PhysicalInteroperability

Knowledge/Awareness

SyntacticalInteroperability

SemanticalInteroperability

PhysicalInteroperability

PragmaticInteroperability

SocialandculturalInteroperability

Source:N

ATO

Research

TaskGroup

www.episecc.euwww.concorde-project.euwww.driver-project.eu

CommonInformationSpace



www.episecc.eu

EPISECC were presented to the CAP Implementer community during the "CAP Implementers'

Workshops" organised by OASIS, ITU and WMO in 2015 and 2017.

On 21st of September, PSCE was invited by the European Commission DG Connect to attend the kick

off meeting of a new “National Broadband Plans and 5G (NBP/5G)” working group of the

Communication Committee2 (COCOM). COCOM is a committee composed of representatives of EU

member states who provide their opinion on the draft measures that the Commission deals with in

course of the agenda of the Digital Single Market.

PSCE was invited to stress the importance that mobile broadband for public safety communication

should be included in national broadband plans, and supported by related policy, as each member

state defines and implements their national plans for 5G deployment. PSCE’s presentation was also

reinforced by a presentation made by the French Ministry of Interior who explained their clear plans

for adoption of mobile broadband for public safety in France.

2 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/communications-committee



www.episecc.eu

3. Standardisation activities in the frame of EPISECC

In the frame of EPISECC the main standardisation activity was the planning and the execution of the

first stage of the CEN Workshop on Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster Management. This chapter

gives an overview on these activities.

3.1. CEN Workshop on terminologies in crisis and disaster management

As mentioned in chapter 2.3.2.2 of this report, a CEN Workshop Agreement on terminologies in crisis

and disaster management was jointly launched by EPISECC and the FP7 projects SECTOR and

SecInCore. The initiative is supported by CEN TC 391. This chapter gives general information on the

concept of CEN Workshop Agreements, on the structure of this specific CEN Workshop initiative on

terminologies in crisis and disaster management, on the multiple partners being members of the

initiative (the initiative involves of members of multiple organisations not limited at all to the

partners of the three initiating projects), on the outcomes of the initiative and finally on further

activities beyond the time horizon of the EPISECC project.

3.1.1. The CEN Workshop Agreement approach

CEN provides different types of products:

European standards,

technical Specifications,

technical Reports,

guides,

CEN Workshop Agreements (CWAs).

It turned out that the CWA is the most suitable product for EPISECC’s purposes. From a formal point

of view it is an agreement developed and approved in a CEN Workshop. It is open to the participation

of anyone with interest in developing such an agreement. Participants from outside Europe are

possible. The duration of a CWA is on average between 10 and 12 months. It is important to notice

that a CWA does not have the status of a European standard; therefore, it leads to no obligations on

national level. A CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) results in a document published by CEN.

The procedure of developing a CWA starts with the submission of a request to the CEN-CENELEC

Management Centre or a CEN-CENELEC national member. The requests include among others a draft

project plan an analysis of the degree of interest in the subject. In case of a positive decision by the

CEN Technical Board, the proposal is announced on the CEN website. During the kick-off meeting the

proposed project plan is accepted by a common agreement and a chairperson is appointed. Then,

the CWA members draft the CWA report according to the project plan. After agreement of the CWA

members on the draft CWA report, CEN starts an open commenting phase of at least 60 days.

Subsequent to the consideration of potential comments by the CWA participants, the final report is

provided to the CEN-CENELEC management centre and becomes valid for at least three years. For

further details, see https://boss.cen.eu/developingdeliverables/CWA/Pages/default.aspx.


https://boss.cen.eu/developingdeliverables/CWA/Pages/default.aspx


www.episecc.eu

3.1.2. The CWA initiative on terminologies in crisis and disaster management

On the 1st of March 2017 the kick-off meeting of the CEN Workshop on Terminologies in Crisis and

Disaster Management took place in Brussels. The FP7 projects EPISECC, SecInCoRe (Secure Dynamic

Cloud for Information, Communication and Resource Interoperability) and SECTOR (Secure European

Common Information Space for the Interoperability of First Responders and Police Authorities)

developed concepts and prototypes of common information spaces including taxonomy concepts in

order to improve and facilitate information exchange between first responders and other

stakeholders. Additional is provided by partners from the FP7 project ConCorde as well as the FP7

project DRIVER (for more details on the partners see chapter 4.1 of this deliverable). According to the

Project Plan for this CEN Workshop (ftp://ftp.cencenelec.eu/CEN/News/2017/WS/TER-

CDM/ProjectPlan.pdf) the following main objectives were defined:

Support of the mutual understanding of users applying various standards (and multiple

semantic structures such as thesauri, terminologies, dictionaries) to enhance mutual

understanding;

Support the use of most commonly used terms and definitions arising from multiple sources

to enhance communication effectiveness.

The project plan identifies among others the following stakeholders as main target groups:

civil protection authorities,

Local Emergency Management Authorities (LEMA),

fire brigades,

police authorities,

first responders (e.g. Red Cross, Knights of St. John),

cross border operations,

military forces involved in crisis and disaster management,

critical infrastructure operators,

industry involved in disaster management and civil protection.

The scope of the workshop can be defined as follows:

“This CEN Workshop Agreement analyses scopes of terminologies as well as definitions of terms of

such terminologies used predominantly in crisis and disaster management. Both scopes and

definitions from different sources are compiled and compared regarding several aspects such as their

context and envisaged audience. The focus is set in responses to large scale critical events. Small scale

incidents managed by daily routine processes of stakeholders are also covered but are not the main

focus of this work. Selected terminologies predominantly from the domains crisis and disaster

management are used for the analysis and are included in the document.

The CEN Workshop Agreement includes terminologies and taxonomies, but no ontologies.”


ftp://ftp.cencenelec.eu/CEN/News/2017/WS/TER-CDM/ProjectPlan.pdf

ftp://ftp.cencenelec.eu/CEN/News/2017/WS/TER-CDM/ProjectPlan.pdf


www.episecc.eu

It is pointed out that it is not possible to analyse all existing terms and definitions applied in national

and international crisis management. The participating projects selected specific domains of crisis

management such as the response phase of crisis management on strategic and tactical levels to

demonstrate the feasibility of the CWA approach. The following framing was set:

a focus on the response phase in crisis and disaster management,

a focus on large scale catastrophes,

no special focus (but not a priori exclusion) on critical infrastructure protection, resilience,

CBRNe and emergency management,

no focus on security aspects such as cyber security, border control as well as physical

security.

The initiative is intended to be terminated by the end of October 2017. At this stage, a report with

the outcomes will be provided to CEN.

3.1.3. The CWA partners

Several FP7 projects are supporting the CEN workshop initiative (see also chapter 3.1.2). During the

lifespan multiple persons joined the initiative, and therefore the list of partners includes many

partners not being involved in the initiating projects. In Table 3, the partners, their roles in the CWA,

their companies as well as the projects the partners are involved in are listed.

Table 3: List of partners of the CEN Workshop Initiative Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster Management

Name Company Role in CWA Project

Georg Neubauer,

Alexander

Preinerstorfer, Karin

Rainer

AIT Austrian Institute

of Technology GmbH

chairperson,

member

FP7 EPISECC

Uberto Delprato IES Solutions member FP7 EPISECC

Martina Baucic,

Snjezana Knezic

University of Split member,

member

FP7 EPISECC

Tom Flynn Saadian Technologies,

TFC Research and

Innovation

member FP7 SECTOR

Monika Buscher Lancaster University member FP7 SecInCore

Jens Pottebaum,

Christina Schäfer,

Rainer Koch

Paderborn University vice chairperson,

member,

member

FP7 SecInCore



www.episecc.eu

René Lindner,

Christopher Liedtke

DIN secretariat,

secretariat

--

Jean-Louis Olie,

Eric Barbay

French Ministry of

Environment,

Transport and Energy

member,

member

--

Patricia Compard French Ministry of

Interior

member --

Georgios Kolliarakis Goethe University

Frankfurt

member --

Toni Staykova Cambridge University

Hospitals

member FP7 ConCorde

4. The first stage results of the CEN Workshop initiative

This CEN Workshop focuses on generating a valid methodology including an applicable categorisation

as well as indicators to define terms and foster common understanding for crisis and disaster

management. Thus, the results are:

1. a methodology (see 4.1),

2. a quality frame for definitions (see 4.2 ),

3. good practice examples of terms, definitions and analyses of degree of similarities (see

chapter 4.4 and Annex B),

4. application of indicators to these examples (see chapter 4.4, Annex B and Annex C).

The terminologies were retrieved from different exemplary sources and organizations, compiled and

compared regarding several aspects such as their context and envisaged audience. By applying

analyses of scopes of terminologies as well as definitions of terms, deviations between homophone

or homograph terms can be detected as well as similarities and/or overlaps in the case of different

terms. As the following detailed description shows, this is relevant to form a basis for a shared

wording and understanding of practitioners from different organisations, countries, and with

different professional background to cooperate in large scale critical events. Although small scale

incidents managed by daily routine processes of stakeholders are also covered, they are not the main

focus of this work. Selected terminologies, predominantly from the crisis and disaster management

domains, are used for the analysis and are included as examples in the document.

The CEN Workshop Report focuses on terminologies, vocabularies and taxonomies, but not on

ontologies.

4.1. Methodology

The main target of the first stage of the initiative is the development of an overall methodological

framework for analysis of a high quality vocabulary in the field of disaster and crisis management.



www.episecc.eu

The methodology aims at a scientifically sound but at the same time practically applicable system to

facilitate the comparison, which is focused on similarities, overlaps, and differences of vocabularies

applied predominantly in the domain of crisis and disaster management as well as of definitions of

concepts included in such vocabularies. It is based on selected vocabularies from this domain taken

from international organisations and their defining documents such as standards3.

These sources of concepts and terms are mainly organised as terminologies containing definitions of

various depth and detail. For the purpose of the methodology, the terminology is defined as

technical vocabulary. It aims at establishing a common understanding of concepts by providing their

terms and specifying definitions. Thus, the provision of coherent terms, belonging to a particular

universe of discourse or a subject area, which are intended to be consistently used by practitioners of

various organisations, different nationalities, and working areas in practice.

Common word search engines can perform the identification and first processing of homograph

words in existing terminologies automatically if terminologies are adequately retrieved, gathered,

and organized.

In the initial phase, the CWA methodology limits its scope strategically to those terminologies

intended for international/inter-organisational use. For the clarity of the concept, it focuses on

sources in English that can generate a better common understanding of practitioners in a first step.

The CWA methodology specifically focuses on homophonous and homograph words with different

meanings appearing in the definitions as well as on different terms that are overlapping or totally

covering the same meaning. These options are deemed highly relevant to clarify communication in

disaster and crisis management activities in all phases and among all stakeholders. Considering this

approach, misunderstandings and errors evolving from different inherent concepts are prone to be

minimised and in the best case prevented.

The set of identified concepts has to be further examined to assess their semantic similarity. Herein,

the methodology proposes indicators to be used for identification of an initial degree of the semantic

similarity between concepts, in particular the scope of terminologies and as well as definitions of

terms. The first type of indicator is based on the metadata about concepts’ source, i.e. terminologies

and their context (e.g. scopes). The second type of indicator allows comparison between descriptions

of equally spelled terms from different sources. This process needs to be highly end user- and

requirements-driven and results in definitions of a type of the relation (mapping) between two

concepts. Identification of concepts having exactly the same meaning but different terms or concepts

having nearly the same meaning and different terms cannot be easily automated and human

involvement in this process is strongly recommended. Once identified, such concepts can be further

semantically compared with indicators using the same approach.

3 The CEN Workshop initiative does not address cyber-security, counter-terrorism, border control, critical

infrastructure protection directly: some of the results of evaluations can eventually be applied to those domains, but not as a primary application area.



www.episecc.eu

For a comparable and above all practically feasible system to parallel and discriminate terms in the

field of disaster and crisis management a matrix of categories with multiple-choice options was

generated in tight connection of the CWA partners.

The core relationships between concepts/terms proposed in this methodology were identified to

have the following semantic values:

• exact match: concepts have exactly the same meaning;

• non-exact match: concepts are related either hierarchically (broader or narrower) or

they have certain semantic overlaps or equivalency - they can also be similar or

associated in some way while the degree of those connections can be specified by using

the indicator;

• no match: concepts have no or no significant semantic connection.

Relevant selection possibilities were generated, tested, and validated on examples by referring to the

later applicability and transferability into the standing practice of stakeholders.

To reach this systemic output, the following activities for the correlation and comparison of the

terminologies visualised in Figure 2 were conducted in the course of the CWA.

Figure 2: Overall approach for the generation of the methodology

These activities included the following main steps further detailed in Annex A:

A1) Methodology specification and preparation:

a. universe of discourse refinement,

b. specification of documentation tools (used for online documentation),

c. indicator definition (here: application driven);

A2) Collection of informative references:

identification of relevant terminologies based on recommendations made by working

group members,

application of the quality framework for definitions;

A3) Data Analysis:

a. identification of good candidates for mutual comparison:

o identification of exactly the same single-word terms and their descriptions,

o identification of same words in single- and multi-word terms (excluding so-called

stop words),



www.episecc.eu

o identification of concepts having exactly the same meaning but different terms,

o identification of concepts having nearly the same meaning and different terms;

b. establishment of relationships between identified concepts;

c. creation of adequate organisational structure using identified relationships;

A4) Validation of all artefacts and application of a peer review process.

The cases of raw terminologies with missing concept descriptions or no distinct definition in the

sources were carefully examined in a first step. Although being a relevant challenge for further

elaboration and development of the methodological approach the challenges of different languages

could not be considered in this first stage.

Once the relationships were established and adequate organizational structure has been set up,

more exact semantic analysis between terminologies were carried out. For the later comparison of

terminologies and their terms, the application of the developed indicators is sufficient for the

practical use.

The described methodology reflects the approach developed in a peer review process by the

members of the working group in order to achieve the goals of this CEN Workshop Agreement. Thus,

the views of relevant stakeholders and representatives of the scientific community as well as from

different categories of stakeholders and end users were included.

4.2. Quality frame for generating and selecting definitions

To reach a high quality of the general output and outcome of the CWA, several quality criteria

forming an indicative frame, were identified. These common rules and minimum requirements were

considered relevant to grant a good outcome of the gathered definitions basing on the

methodological output of the CEN Workshop initiative4. They are shortly outlined and extended for

the necessities of the CWA in the following steps:

1. The definitions of the terms shall set out the essential attributes of the objects or concepts

defined by following the categories and parameters stated in chapter 4.1 and Annex A.

2. Definitions should avoid direct circularity although it is a necessity to include the specific

terms used for the definitions into the database and include them into the definition

exercise. Circular references emerging from this practice will not have severe negative

influence on the high quality of the data collection due to the additional informational

discourse provided by the different explanatory categories.

3. The definitions of the used sources and documents should not be too wide or too narrow to

grant practicability without missing out or including non-applicable factors.

4 see Macagno, Fabrizio; Walton, Douglas (2014). Emotive Language in Argumentation. New York: Cambridge

University Press. Chapter III.



www.episecc.eu

4. The definitions must be clear and explain the meaning by the use of other words that are

commonly understood. To clarify them, further definitions according to the second rule may

be necessary and sensible.

5. The definitions should be positive and avoid whenever possible the negation of other terms.

6. The definitions should include input in all given categories to provide all necessary

information for the later use of the intended user groups.

7. A system of peer review or a four-eye-principle should be applied to support the relevance

and validity of the definitions.

To grant a high reliability while performing comparative analysis of context and definitions –

specifically in the fields of implicit information like the effect of a defined object or activity related to

a term – the principle of a peer review and validation of the definition was deemed useful and

necessary. The result of this combination is reflecting on the one side the essence of a term and its

meaning for the use in the defined field of emergency and disaster management as well as to listing

the objects that a term is used for5. In addition, an indicative quality frame for the definitions per se

has to be considered. It is proposed to achieve practical relevance and conciseness of the selected

terms and their meanings extracted from their various sources by applying a mixed methods

approach of intensional6 and extensional7 definitions. Special focus lies on the challenging fact of

definitions of homographs by different documents and/or different organisations in the field that

leads to more or less varying outputs as shown in Annex B.

By applying these principles and realising the outputs of the derived methodology as living and

growing structure that will be facilitated and applied by the end users, the definitions will contribute

to the intended scope of the CWA.

4.3. Context and definition analyses

Evolving from the basis of the categories, indicators, and parameters described in Section 4.1 and

further detailed in Annex A, it becomes obvious that the area of the definition has to be elaborated

in detail. This is necessary for a straight forward and end user oriented comparability and also for the

discrimination of different terms. Besides this precondition for the later applicability in an

international, cross-system and cross-organisational context, a thorough test of the above-

mentioned methodology and the considered variables becomes a main objective.

For a solid validation test, selected terms were exemplarily elaborated and analysed regarding their

context and definitions. The blue category parameters (Definition) (see – Methodology specification

and preparation (A1)) were applied in addition to the basic information inserted in the excel data

collection by the CWA-partners, consisting typically of cited terms and definitions. By orienting on

5 see Lyons, John. "Semantics, vol. I." Cambridge: Cambridge (1977). pp 158.

6 defining a term by outlining the necessary and sufficient conditions of the use of it

7 formulating its meaning by specifying its extension which makes it only possible for finite sets and only

practical for relatively small sets



www.episecc.eu

the quality parameters defined in chapter 4.2, a high level of reliability of the selected multiple-

choice settings was reached.

Starting from the definition of several guiding questions, it became possible to systematically reach

the parametrisation of the specific additive definition section. These questions were crystallised by

the cooperating CWA-partners as the following examples show:

What kind of organizations is addressed in the definition? (Group: organization, geographical

area);

Is there a domain addressed in the definition? (category, scenario of application).

In principle, an analysis of a subject, an object and a predicate was conducted within this definition

following the technique of discourse parsing as explained in Annex A.

The choice of the terms is oriented on covering a high relevance for the field and the concerned

practitioners/intended end users of the outputs of this CEN Workshop initiative. Additionally, the

coverage of different initially cited definitions of identically spelled terms and linked with this

different sources of the identic terms were identified as important.

In addition to the initial use, it was an objective to create the methodology being applicable in

tackling similar terms and their connection in the future. Furthermore, the selection aimed at using

different layers of complexity to support the validation of different terms relevant and useful for the

exchange between different stakeholders in multiple types of organisations responsible for and

involved in disaster and emergency management on different stages of abstraction.

The guiding questions and additional input of the stakeholders of the CWA-partnership were

elaborated. Their answers can be easily selected via the multiple choice selection modes as shown in

the Table 4.



www.episecc.eu

Table 4: Definition categories and multiple choice selection parameters (see also Annex A)

While the parameters regarding the type of organisation as well as the type of geographical area are

following the analogous points of the other categories phase, range of escalation and scenario of

application were transferred from other, generally accepted models in the field of emergency

management. The phases were extracted from the generic disaster management cycle phases8. The

parameters of the range of escalation were deduced from the basic discrimination between large

scale disasters – not manageable on local/regional level – and small scale emergencies9. The scenario

of application was extracted from an approach that is as holistic as possible to cover all possible

types of events10.

The categories referring to the other properties of the discourse parsing as “objects” and “effects”

were deduced to the most generic level to make them applicable to the broad range of different

aspects. In general, the objects were divided into different groups of persons involved in the

definition, equipment and infrastructure used or influenced as well as concepts that are relevant and

active in the context. Regarding the effects, it has to be underpinned that the intended and

immediate effects in the considered temporal and situational setting have to be evaluated and/or

implied. Thus, the parameters can be seen as having positive, negative, neutral or no effects.

8 see e.g. Vasilescu, L.G., Khan, H., Khan, A. Disaster Management CYCLE – a theoretical approach. In:

Management & Marketing 6(1):43-50. January 2008. 9 see e.g. http://apps.who.int/disasters/repo/7656.pdf (retrieved 02.10.2017)

10 see e.g. http://www.datypic.com/sc/niem31/t-em_AlertEventDetailsCategoryCodeType.html (retrieved

02.10.2017)

Definition

Type of organisation

(multiple choice) Phase (multiple choice)

Range of Escalation

(multiple choice)

Scenario of Application

(mutliple choice) Objects Effects

Type of geografical area

(multiple choice)

Governmental Prevention (Mitigation, risk management*)Emergency (small scale)"Geo” - Geophysical (inc.

landslide) groups of personspositiv Local

Industry / other business Preparation (resilience) Disaster (large scale)“Met” - Meteorological (inc.

flood) equipmentnegativ Regional

Research and Education Response Other (to be specified) “Safety” - General

emergency and public safety infrastructure

neutral/noneNational

standardisation Recovery Not Specified

“Security” - Law

enforcement, military,

homeland and local/private

security concept

International (EU, continent, cross

border)

NGOs“Rescue” - Rescue and

recovery

International“Fire” - Fire suppression and

rescue

Other (to be specified)“Health” - Medical and public

healthOther (to be specified)

General public“Env” - Pollution and other

environmentalNot Specified

First responders“Transport” - Public and

private transportation

Practitioners“Infra” - Utility,

telecommunication, other

non-transport infrastructure

Not Specified

“CBRNE” – Chemical,

Biological, Radiological,

Nuclear and Explosives

Other

Not Specified


http://apps.who.int/disasters/repo/7656.pdf

http://www.datypic.com/sc/niem31/t-em_AlertEventDetailsCategoryCodeType.html


www.episecc.eu

Terms with different definitions in one document (e.g. in regards of different local/temporal/action-

related settings as the double definition of “ambulance” defined in the TSO and given in Annex B)

were decided to be combined with the according reference. This will facilitate a clear understanding

of the term according to this source without ignoring relevant background information. Thus, terms

can be compared and used by the intended stakeholders.

4.4. Exemplary outputs on analyses of context and definitions

As further elaborated in Annex B – Example comparisons of terms and sources”, the common and

specific cases of the definition in different sources generated by specifically oriented organisations

are relevant for the applicability of the CWA-methodology.

Basically, as also mentioned in section 4.1 on Methodology, the general constellations of definitions

were identified as following:

• One term is defined by different sources and generating organizations similarities

and/or deviations according to the selected categories and contexts;

• One term is included in the definition of another term they have overlaps and

similarities (e.g. item and sub-item);

• Two terms are (more or less) sharing one definition identification of overlaps and

differences; specifically in the context of different organisations this is relevant.

Differences in the definition of homographs and incomplete overlaps underpin the potential of

misunderstandings. Thus, the importance of a common understanding of these aspects and a shared

terminology supported by the CWA-outputs is key. Obvious differences on the level of elaboration of

the description are also to be taken into account and taken into account when applying the

indicators. This helps practitioners to identify highly loaded and detailed definitions for further use.

Thus, the application of the CEN Workshop methodology and categorisation supports the analysis of

possible differences induced by different types of organisation, phases and context, the range of

escalation and the other items defined in section 4.1 and further detailed in Annex A.

5. Further activities beyond the end of EPISECC

Beyond the end of EPISECC, a second stage of the CEN Workshop will continue in order to improve

the repository of the initiative by adding additional relevant terminologies. Moreover, additional

validations are going to be performed. For details, see chapter 5.2 of this deliverable.

5.1. Standardisation activities beyond the EPISECC horizon

Two activities related to standardisation are planned in order to have a follow up after the end of

EPISECC:

stage 2 of the CEN Workshop on terminologies in crisis and disaster management, and

the feasibility assessment of the development of a standard on interoperability in crisis and

disaster management.



www.episecc.eu

This section gives a short overview on both activities.

5.2. The CWA on terminologies in crisis and disaster management – stage 2

By the end of October 2017 stage 1 of the CEN Workshop on Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster

Management is finalized. In the frame of the first stage of the CEN Workshop the focus was set on:

development of a methodology to compare the context of different terminologies of the

crisis and disaster management domain,

development of a methodology to compare the definitions of homograph terms from

different terminologies,

identification and inclusion of a set of reference terminologies in the CEN Workshop

repository (currently the terminologies are stored in Excel-sheets, but more sophisticated

solutions are envisaged),

testing and validation of the methodologies by using reference terminologies.

The outcomes of stage 1 of the CEN Workshop are reported in the report “First stage of the CWA on

Terminologies in Crisis and Disaster Management” from October 201711. It was decided by the

members of the CEN Workshop that an extension of the content of the repository of the CEN

Workshop initiative is quite beneficial for future applications. It was therefore decided to extend the

scope of the CEN Workshop by adding a second stage. Because the methods developed within the

CEN Workshop are also helpful for the activities of the FP7 project DRIVER+, the following objectives

for the stage 2 of the CEN Workshop were defined:

inclusion of additional terminologies of the crisis and disaster management domain in the

CEN Workshop repository,

execution of additional comparisons of context and definitions,

use of the terminologies of the CEN Workshop in order to strengthen the requested DRIVER+

terminology.

Therefore, the timeline of the CEN Workshop will be extended until end of June 2018. At the given

stage it is planned to give a presentation of the CWA results at an I4CM Workshop (International

Workshop on “Innovation for Crisis Management”) in late spring/early summer 2018.

5.3. Assessment of the feasibility of a standard on interoperability in crisis and disaster

management

The H2020 ResiStand project aims to improve crisis management and disaster resilience by

establishing a sustainable process to support standardisation of technologies and services. For this

purpose ResiStand developed the ResiStand Assessment Framework (RAF) for standardisation

activities. The RAF consists of an interface realised as extensive excel sheet with several tabs where

one can assess whether a new idea for standardisation might be feasible. The idea of such a

11

At the time of finalisation of this Deliverable the mentioned report was finalized by the members of the CWA and submitted to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre for further processing



www.episecc.eu

framework is that it can help proposers to think further about all the aspects involved in developing a

standard. This assessment is not meant to replace anything existing (such as the NWIP form), but

rather to be applied before the formal standardisation procedures start, and therefore to create

awareness of the whole development and application of a standardisation idea.

The framework includes aspects such as:

intake (proposed activity, stakeholder involvement, uniqueness and compliancy issues),

(related) disaster types,

trends (anticipated by the proposed standard),

impacts (on the practitioners level),

impacts (on industry and research),

feasibility (e.g. development perspectives, implementation, constraints).

The outcome of the assessment is presented in an overview, an example of a preliminary evaluation

is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Example of the outcome of an assessment overview on a standardization initiative on interoperability

Supported by experts of the Netherlands Standardisation Institute (NEN) and the German

Standardisation Institute (DIN) the EPISECC team recently started such a pre-standardisation

evaluation process. This activity will be continued beyond the time frame of EPISECC. It is intended to

continue activities within the FP7 project DRIVER+.



www.episecc.eu

Annex A – Methodology specification and preparation (A1)

Universe of discourse refinement (A1a)

The key intention of the CWA is to simplify access to and usage of terminologies as well as to

facilitate bridging between different terminologies. Therefore, the universe of discourse needs to be

determined from an application driven perspective. Scenarios describing potential use cases (UCs) for

the CWA reflect this. Primary questions for the use cases are:

Who (type of organization, actor) will use the TER-CDM-THE (T-C-T) and

for which purpose (type of action)?

Is the T-C-T used directly (spoken or written communication) or mediated by

software tools?

When and where is the use of the T-C-T intended?

The initial set of use cases collected within the CWA working group includes:

UC1) “Communication, information exchange” (from SG/SDSIE/DPGC): Technical experts

are requested to support crisis management staff during a crisis. As crisis management is not

part of their day-to-day work, they are provided with the thesaurus incorporated in context

specific terminology cards.

UC2) “Exchange of messages with annotation” (from EPISECC) UC2: Recipient receives hint

in their own terminology about semantics that were used by sender.

UC3) “Collection of relevant documents for emergency planning” (from SecInCoRe): UC3-1

Search string is typed into search engine, hint is provided regarding semantically related

terms; UC3-2: Search results are enriched by semantic annotations.

UC4) “Exchange of real time operational data for EMS” (COncORDE): UC4-1: User (e.g. 112

or ground responder) selects or writes a term to describe a hazard (e.g. dangerous gas) and

semantic search provides the relevant instructions from a linked DB for immediate action to

all users in the relevant area; UC4-2: User (e.g. field doctor) inputs injury description of

patient, system uses semantic search to recommend best hospital (type of specialty to type

of injury match).

UC5) Training, debrief. Learning, risk analysis: Emergency training exercise leaders use T-C-

T to find examples of mistakes and best practice around the same issue across past disaster

reports.

Use cases, UC1 to UC5, are represented by members of the CWA working group12.

Documentation models, formats and tools (A1b)

The use of common formats and tools is essential to facilitate collaboration. Parallel activities need to

be supported by these tools. Today, the terminologies should be stored in digital forms appropriate

12

The different Use Cases have partial similarities, e.g. UC5 can be seen as practical application of UC3.



www.episecc.eu

for the intended use: for instance from pdf or xls document that could be searched and read on any

device to open databases that could be linked with other sources of terms and used by software

applications. Several efforts have been made to standardise digital form for terminologies and other

structures such as dictionaries, vocabularies, controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, thesauri and

unified thesaurus. The working group agrees to use:

Microsoft Excel for the collection of terminologies (i.e. terms and corresponding meta-data),

Microsoft Word and PowerPoint for textual and graphical documentation.

Besides selected tools, which are intuitive and well-known for all participants, the working group

considered data models proposed by the standard ISO 25964 and The World Wide Web Consortium

(W3C group) Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS).

Indicator definition (A1c)

The terms and their definitions can be described according to three different main categories of

parameters (see also Table 4):

1. the terms themselves (blue category13),

2. the definitions themselves (blue category),

3. the context:

a. the intended user groups (yellow category),

b. the intended domain of application (green category),

c. the source (grey category).

For each of these four categories a set of parameters were defined. In general, one can distinguish

between two ways on how parameters are determined:

Descriptions taken exactly from the source document (citation);

Categories are determined according to a multiple choice selection scheme (see the

proposed multiple choice categories below). This implies some kind of interpretation by

someone performing the multiple choice selection.

Indicators are defined on the level of parameters. Based on some kind of algorithm (for instance,

string comparison, semantic distance, number of matching assigned keywords, etc.), indicators

facilitate the comparison of two terms. The indication varies as shown:

‘exact match’

‘non-exact match’

‘no match’

The likelihood that two terms are matching is calculated/assessed based on a weighted aggregation

of indications related to single parameters (termMatch + definitionMatch + contextMatch).

13

The colours are used in the Excel template developed for the collection of terminologies, for the sake of comprehensiveness the main categories are named according to the colours applied in the template



www.episecc.eu

The term indicator (termMatch)

In case of the term only two indications are possible: ‘exact match’ and ‘no match.

The definition indicator (definitionMatch)

The definition indicator is typically used to compare two definitions of the homograph term included

in two different terminologies. The definition indicator is an assembly of seven parameters all

belonging to the definition category. Only parameters belonging to the “multiple choice selection

schemes” are used.

A detailed description of the definition indicator can be found in Annex D.

The context indicator (contextMatch)

The context indicator is typically used in order to compare the scopes of two terminologies. The

context indicator is an assembly of five parameters, two belonging to the yellow (Intended User) and

three to the green category parameters group (Intended Domain). Only parameters belonging to the

“multiple choice selection schemes” are used. A detailed description of the Context Indicator can be

found in Annex C.

Collection of informative references (A2)

The purpose of the collection of references is twofold:

1. to give an overview on the sources of terminologies included in the document and used to

apply the developed methodology to analyse context and compare definitions

2. to give additional background information to the reader

The references can be found in Annex E and are structured according to the above mentioned

purposes.

Data analysis – categories of parameters (A3)

According to the categorisation described in section 4.1 it is necessary to set up multiple choice

selections for the categories definition (blue category) and the context (intended user group (yellow

group), intended area of application (green category) and source (grey category). This approach is

necessary to allow further and extended search and filter modes to support the intended user groups

of the CWA output.

Blue category parameters (definition):

Following a modified model of discourse parsing (resp. clause analysis), the different properties of

the definition were identified and became subject to the further abstraction via the drop down

options as outlined below. As subject, the type of organisation and/or the scenario of application

were identified; implicitly only one predicate or statement about the subject is regarded as necessary

in the first place: the relative effect being positive, negative, or neutral.

Several objects were identified and could be transferred to the general or meta-termini as explained

below. In addition to this basic frame additional categories indicate modal, local and temporal



www.episecc.eu

properties of the definition. They aim at the range of escalation, the type of region and the specific

phase relevant for the use of the term/the signified (following Saussure14).

To estimate the level of discrimination and/or matching of equal terms e.g. from different sources,

the following sub-categories (parameters) were identified for the specifics of the definitions to

additionally frame the terms. The multiple choice selections for each of the parameters are given in

Annex D:

type of organisation

phase

range of escalation

scenario of application

objects

effects

type of geographical area

Yellow category parameters (intended user group):

The following sub-categories are defined to specify the intended user group:

type of organisation

type of geographical area

The multiple choice selections for both categories are given in the Annex D (the multiple choices are

the same as for the blue categories: type of organisation and type of geographical area).

Green category parameters (intended domain of application):

The following sub-categories are defined to specify the intended domain of application:

phase

range of escalation

scenario of application

The multiple choice selections for all categories are given in the Annex D (the multiple choices are the

same as for the blue categories for all sub-categories).

Grey category parameters (source of term and definition):

The following sub-category is defined to specify the source of term and definition:

Type of organisation.

The multiple choice selection is given in the Annex D (the multiple choice is the same as for the blue

categories for the type of organisation).

14

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours in Literary Theory: An Anthology ed. by Michael Ryan and Julie Rivkin. Blackwell Publishers. 2001.



www.episecc.eu

Annex B – Example comparisons of terms and sources

Example comparison “Emergency Management”

In Table 5 the example of the different definitions of emergency management according to the

sources of the ISO 22300 and the UNISDR 2015 are elaborated. Relevant differences and partial

overlaps are relevant in the categories of Phase, range of escalation and objects. They underpin the

potential misunderstandings and thus the importance of a common understanding and language

supported by the CWA-outputs.

Table 5: Exemplary exercise of the definitions for the term “Emergency Management”

Document ISO 22300 UNISDR 2015

Term Emergency Management Emergency Management

Definition Overall approach

preventing and managing

emergencies that might

occur

The organization and management of resources and

responsibilities for addressing all aspects of

emergencies and effectively respond to hazardous

event or disaster

Type of

organisation

Not specified Not specified

Phase Prevention & response

(managing)

Prevention and preparation

Range of

escalation

Emergency Emergency and disaster

Scenario of

Application

Not specified (all possible) Not specified (all possible)

Objects Concept (assisting) All categories (resources and responsibilities)

Effect Positive Positive

Type of

region




www.episecc.eu

Calculation of the definition indicator for the definitions of the term “Emergency Management”

Based on the methodology defined in chapter 4.1, the similarity between the definitions from the

term “Emergency Management” from ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015 is calculated. Table 6 gives an

overview on the different parameters and the allocated values in order to illustrate how the Indicator

is calculated. A definition indicator of 0.875 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.57 the

Adjusted Definition Indicator becomes 0.5 (the last two parameters are not shown in the table).

Table 6: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator

DfOrg w1 DfPha w2 Dfesc w3 Dfsce w4 Dfobj w5 Dfeff w6 Dfreg w7 DefInd

0 0 0.5 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.875

The text below illustrates the method to allocate values to the parameters of the Definition Indicator

in order to demonstrate the application of the Indicator.

A type of organisation (subject) is “not specified” in both definitions. Accordingly, the

weighting factor w1 has to be set to 0.

Two phases (of the disaster management cycle) are specified in both terminologies, the

common option from the multiple choice selection is “prevention”. This implies that rule II

(two selected choices of a parameter for one or both terminologies) has to be applied,

because one of the two selected options is the same for both terminologies, i.e. terms.

Therefore the value 0.5 is assigned to Dfpha.

Ranges of escalations are specified in both definitions. In one case two choices (emergency,

disaster); in the second case one choice (emergency) is valid. Therefore rule I has to be

applied, the value 1 is assigned to Dfesc.

A scenario of application is “not specified” in both definitions. Accordingly, the weighting

factor w4 has to be set to 0.

Objects are specified in both definitions. In one case all choices (all categories), in the second

case one choice (concept) is valid. Therefore rule I has to be applied, the value 1 is assigned

to Dfobj.

An effect is specified in both definitions (positive). Therefore rule I has to be applied, the

value 1 is assigned to Dfeff.

A geographical area is “not specified” in both definitions. Accordingly, the weighting factor

w7 has to be set to 0.

Three out of seven weighting factors have to be set to 0 due to lack of specification of the

respective parameters. The sum of the remaining weighting parameters must be 1. An equal

weight for the four parameters is selected. This leads to a value of 0.25 for w2, w3, w5 and w6.

Applying the formula from chapter Annex C for the DefInd leads to a value of 0.875.



www.episecc.eu

Four out of seven sub-parameters are specified leading to a Specification Degree of 0.57

according to table 4.

The adjusted definition indicator ADefInd is therefore 0.5.

Example of the comparison for the term “Hazard”

Another example with obvious differences on the level of concreteness is the description and

definition of the term “hazard” described by ISO 22300, SDSIE 2017, and in UNISDR 2015 that can be

seen in Table 7.

Table 7: Exemplary exercise of the definition complex for the term of hazard

Document UNISDR 2015 SDSIE 2017 ISO 22300

Term Hazard Hazard Hazard

Definition A potentially damaging physical

event, phenomenon or human

activity, which may cause the

loss of life or injury, property

damage, social and economic

disruption or environmental

degradation

Source of danger of

natural, endogenous or

pandemic nature and not

provoked by any

intentional human action

Source of

potential harm

Type of

organisation

Not specified Not specified Not specified

Phase Response (onset)

or

Not specified

Not specified (or response

(onset))

Not specified (or

response

(onset))

Range of

escalation

Not specified (both possible) Not specified (both

possible)

Not specified

(both possible)

Scenario of

Application

Not specified (all possible) Geo, Met, Fire, health (not

human)

Not specified (all

possible)

Objects Groups of persons,

infrastructure


Effect Negative Negative Negative



www.episecc.eu

Type of

region


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


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

The parameters of the indicator to compare the definitions from ISO 22300 with UNISDR 2015 as well

as SDSIE 2017 and UNISDR 2015 are not shown, because all parameters are the same as for the

comparisons between ISO 22300 and SDSIE 2017, leading consequently to the same indicator values.

Example of the comparison: “Ambulance” vs “Emergency Services”

By comparing the definitions of the term “Ambulance” in the TSO 2009 and a document of the

International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC “Ambulance and pre-hospital

services in risk situations 2013”), the differences and thus, the added value of the methodology and

application of the CWA are pointed out again. Taking into consideration the partially overlapping

term of emergency services as stated in the UNISDR 2015, the practical value for the end users by a

clarified definition for the terms is elaborated in Table 9.

Table 9: Exemplary exercise of the definition of “Ambulance” in comparison to “Emergency services”

Document TSO 2009 Ambulance and pre-hospital

services in risk situations

2013

UNISDR 2015

Term Ambulance Ambulance Emergency services

Definition Vehicle use to

transport

casualties

[response

An ambulance, for the

purposes of this publication,

is a locally available means of

transport

The set of specialized

agencies that have specific

responsibilities and objectives

in serving and protecting



www.episecc.eu

context];

for conveying

sick, wounded,

incapacitated,

or injured

persons

[recovery

context].

that carries, as safely and

comfortably as possible,

wounded and acutely sick

persons to a place

where they can receive the

emergency medical and/or

surgical care they need; it is

also where

the condition of these

patients is stabilized.

Transportation may be either

from the site of an

emergency to a health-care

facility or between two

health-care facilities.

people and property in

emergency situations.

Comment: Emergency

services include agencies

such as civil protection

authorities, police, fire,

ambulance, paramedic and

emergency medicine services,

Red Cross and Red Crescent

societies, and specialized

emergency units of

electricity, transportation,

communications and other

related service organizations.

Type of

organisation

Not specified Governmental, NGOs, First

responders

Governmental, NGOs, First

responders

Phase Response and

recovery

Response, recovery Recovery

Range of

escalation

Emergency

and disaster

Emergency and disaster Emergency and disaster

Scenario of

Application

Not specified

(all possible)

Not specified (all possible) Not specified (all possible)

Objects Equipment Equipment Infrastructure

Effects Positive Positive Positive

Geographical

scope

Not specified local Not specified

Based on the methodology defined in chapter 4.1, the similarity between the definitions from the

term “ambulance” from TSO 2009 and from “Ambulance and pre-hospital services in risk situations

2013” is calculated. Table 10 gives an overview on the different parameters and the allocated values

in order to illustrate how the indicator is calculated. A definition indicator of 1 is obtained, and due to



www.episecc.eu

a Specification Degree of 0.57 the Adjusted Definition Indicator becomes 0.57 (the last two

parameters are not shown in the table).

Table 10: Overview on parameters of the definition indicator for “Ambulance” from TSO 2009 and “Ambulance and pre-

hospital services 2013”


0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1

Table 11 gives an overview of the parameters and allocated values originated from the comparison of

the definitions of the term “Ambulance” from TSO 2009 and “Emergency service” from UNISDR 2015.

A definition indicator of 0.8 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.71 the Adjusted

Definition Indicator becomes 0.57 (the last two parameters are not shown in the table).

Table 11: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “Ambulance” from TSO 2009 and

“Emergency Service” from UNISDR 2015


1 0.2 0.5 0.2 1 0.2 0 0 0.5 0.2 1 0.2 0 0 0.8


the definitions of the term “Emergency Service” from “Ambulance and pre-hospital services in risk

situations 2013” and from UNISDR 2015. A definition indicator of 0.625 is obtained, and due to a

Specification Degree of 0.57 the Adjusted Definition Indicator becomes 0.36 (the last two parameters

are not shown in the table).

Table 12: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “Emergency Service” from

“Emergency Service and pro-hospital services. 2009” and UNISDR 2015


0 0 0.5 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.625

Example of the comparison for the term “Resilience”

The comparison of the definitions of a generic term like “Resilience” given in the documents of ISO

22300, the ICRC “Ambulance and pre-hospital services in risk situations 2013” and UNISDR 2015

shows again core overlaps. On the other hand, slight yet relevant differences regarding the temporal

aspects given in the category of the phase that is addressed become obvious as Table 13 makes clear.



www.episecc.eu

Table 13: Exemplary exercise of the definition of “Resilience”

Document ISO 22300 Ambulance and

pre-hospital

services in risk

situations 2013

UNISDR 2015

Term Resilience Resilience Resilience

Definition adaptive

capacity of an

organization in a

complex and

changing

environment.

Resilience is the

ability of an

organization to

manage

disruptive

related risk

is the ability of an

individual or

community to

bounce back from

an adverse event.

The ability of a system, community or

society exposed to hazards to resist,

absorb, accommodate to and recover

from the effects of a hazard in a timely

and efficient manner, including through

the preservation and restoration of its

essential basic structures and functions.

Resilience means the ability to “resile

from” or “spring back from” a shock. The

resilience of a community in respect to

any hazard or event is determined by

the degree to which the community has

the necessary resources and is capable

of organizing itself both prior to and

during times of need.

Type of

organisation

Not specified General Public General Public

Phase Response and

recovery

Response and

recovery

Preparation, response and recovery

Range of

escalation

Emergency and

disaster

Emergency and

disaster

Emergency and disaster

Scenario of

Application

Not specified

(all possible)

Not specified (all

possible)

Not specified (all possible)

Objects Concept Concept Concept

Effects Positive Positive Positive



www.episecc.eu

Geographical

scope



the definitions of the term “resilience” from ISO 22300 from ICRC 2015. A definition indicator of

0.875 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.57 the Adjusted Definition Indicator

becomes 0.5 (the last two parameters are not shown in the following table).

Table 14: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience” from ISO 22300 and

ICRC 2015


0 0 0.5 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.875


the definitions of the term “resilience” from ISO 22300 and from UNISDR 2015. A definition indicator

of 0.938 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.57 the Adjusted Definition Indicator

becomes 0.53 (the last two parameters are not shown in the table).

Table 15: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience” from ISO 22300 and

UNISDR 2015


0 0 0.75 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.938


the definitions of the term “resilience” from ICRC 2015 and from UNISDR 2015. A definition indicator

of 0.95 is obtained, and due to a Specification Degree of 0.71 the Adjusted Definition Indicator

becomes 0.67 (the last two parameters are not shown in the table).

Table 16: Overview on all parameters of the definition indicator for the definitions for “resilience” from ICRC and UNISDR

2015


0 0 0.75 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 1 0.25 1 0.25 0 0 0.95

Example of the comparison for the term “Vulnerability”

In addition, the following term “Vulnerability” is analysed outlining possible differences induced by

different types of organizations. While the definitions in the documents of ISO 22300, the ICRC

“Protection Policy 2008”, UNISDR 2015, and the Lexicon of UK civil protection terminology frame a

similar meaning, the difference appears mainly in the respective phase the term is regarding to as

Table 17 shows.



www.episecc.eu

Table 17: Exemplary exercise of the definition of vulnerability

The comparison of the different definitions of the term “Vulnerability” leads to a variation of the

Definition Indicator between 0.8 and 1, the Adjusted Definition Indicator lays between 0.53 and 0.57.

Example of the comparison of context of ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015

By comparing the context of the scope of the ISO 22300 2012 and the purpose of the collection of

the definitions in the UNISDR 2015 (Table 18), the overlaps and differences of these contexts thus

the added value of the methodology and application of the CWA, are pointed out again.

Table 18: Exemplary exercise of the context from ISO 22300 and UNISDR 2015

Document ISO 22300 2012 UNISDR 2015

Name of

context

Scope Purpose



www.episecc.eu

Context This

international

standard

contains terms

and definitions

applicable to

societal security

to establish a

common

understanding

so that

consistent terms

are used.

The purpose of this paper is to inform the open-ended

intergovernmental expert group on indicators and terminology

on past and recent work on disaster risk reduction terminology

as a contribution to the implementation of the Sendai

Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. The paper

outlines the history of disaster risk reduction related

terminology since 2001 and recent work facilitated by the

UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction)

based on consultations with experts, the UNISDR Scientific and

Technical Advisory Group, practitioners and partners to reach

consensus on definitions. The result is proposed updated

terminology on disaster risk reduction (August 2015) including

emerging terms used in the Sendai Framework – in particular

those terms used in the scope and global targets.

Type of

organisation

Not specified Governmental, international

Phase Not specified Not specified

Range of

escalation

Not specified Disaster

Scenario of

Application

Other (societal

security)

Not specified (many possibilities: Geo, Met, Rescue, Fire….)

Type of

region

international international

The comparison of the contexts leads to a Specification Degree SD of 0.2. The Adjusted Context

Indicator AContInd is therefore 0.2 (Table 19). These values indicate a low level of concreteness of

the terms which is understandable due to the fact that general outlines are described.

Table 19: Overview on all parameters of the context indicator

IUGOrg w1 IUGReg w2 IUGPha w3 IUGEsc w4 IUGSce w5 ContInd

0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1



www.episecc.eu

Annex C – The indicator calculation

The context indicator

The context indicator is described as:

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑑 = [𝐼𝑈𝐺𝑜𝑟𝑔 ∗ 𝑤1 + 𝐼𝑈𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑔 ∗ 𝑤2 + 𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑝ℎ𝑎 ∗ 𝑤3 + 𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑒𝑠𝑐 ∗ 𝑤4 + 𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑠𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑤5]

where:

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑑 Context Indicator (Value between 0 and 1, 0 = Worst Case, 1 = Best Case). The IUGx and

IDoAx (sub-) parameters are each calculated according to set of rules I to III described

below and can reach values between 0 and 1.

𝐼𝑈𝐺𝑜𝑟𝑔 Intended User Group – Type of Organisation: yellow category parameter (see Annex A,

3.a), parameter describing the degree of context similarity of the intended user group /

type of organisation.

𝐼𝑈𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑔 Intended User Group – Region (geographical area): yellow category parameter (see Annex

A, 3.a), parameter describing the degree of context similarity of the intended user group /

region.

𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑝ℎ𝑎 Intended Domain - Phase: green category parameter (see Annex A, 3.b), parameter

describing the degree of context similarity of the intended domain / phase.

𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑒𝑠𝑐 Intended Domain – Range of Escalation: green category parameter (see Annex A, 3.b),

parameter describing the degree of context similarity of the intended domain / range of

escalation.

𝐼𝐷𝑜𝐴𝑠𝑐𝑒 Intended Domain – Scenario of Application: green category parameter (see Annex A, 3.b),

parameter describing the degree of context similarity of the intended domain / scenario

of application.



www.episecc.eu

𝑤𝑥 Weight for the description of a context similarity between two terminologies. The sum of all

wx must be 1. A possible pre-configuration is to set all five weighting parameters to a value of

0.2, depending on the relevance that is given to a specific IUGx or IDoAx parameter. In case if

in one or both context descriptions no information on one or more IUGx and/or IDoAx

parameters is given, the respective weighting factor needs to be set to 0 (example: no

information on the type of organisation is given). In such cases it has to be ensured that the

sum of all weighting factors is still 1, in case of equal weight of four specified sub-parameters

the remaining weighting parameters might obtain a value of 0.25 each. The higher the

number of not specified sub-parameters, the lower the specification degree gets.

Rule I. One selected choice of a parameter (e.g. Geo for IDoAsce) for one or both

terminologies

0 …. No match between any complying parameters (e.g. governmental, state), match of “not

specified” does never count.

1 …. One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first

responders as complying parameter).

In case more than 1 choices are selected for both terminologies, rule II or rule III can be

applied.

Rule II. Two selected choices of a parameter (e.g. Geo & Infra for IDoAsce) for one or

both terminologies



0.5 …. One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first


1… Two complying parameters, e.g. first responders and practitioners.


applied.

Rule III. Three or more selected choices of a parameter (e.g. Geo, Fire and Infra for

IDoAsce) for one or both terminologies





0.75 … Two complying parameters, e.g. first responders and practitioners.

1 ……. Three or more complying parameters.



www.episecc.eu

The definition indicator

The definition indicator is described as:

𝐷𝑒𝑓𝐼𝑛𝑑 = [𝐷𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑔 ∗ 𝑤1 + 𝐷𝑓𝑝ℎ𝑎 ∗ 𝑤2 + 𝐷𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑐 ∗ 𝑤3 +𝐷𝑓𝑠𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑤4 + 𝐷𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑗 ∗ 𝑤5 + 𝐷𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑓 ∗ 𝑤6

+𝐷𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑔 ∗ 𝑤7]

where:

𝐷𝑒𝑓𝐼𝑛𝑑 Definition Indicator (Value between 0 and 1, 0 = Worst Case, 1 = Best Case). The Dfx (sub-)

parameters are each calculated according to set of rules I to III described below and can

reach values between 0 and 1.

All (sub-)parameters belong to the blue category (see AnnexA, 2).

𝐷𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑔 Type of Organisation: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the type

of organisation.

𝐷𝑓𝑝ℎ𝑎 Phase (of event in disaster management cycle): parameter describing the degree of

definition similarity of the phase.

𝐷𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑐 Range of escalation: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of range of

escalation.

𝐷𝑓𝑠𝑐𝑒 Scenario of application: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the

scenario of application.

𝐷𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑗 Objects: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the object (used or

manipulated).

𝐷𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑓 Effects: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the potential effect (of

an action or an event).

𝐷𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑔 Region: parameter describing the degree of definition similarity of the geographical area.



www.episecc.eu

𝑤𝑥 Weighting parameter for the description of a definition similarity between two definitions from

typically the same terms from different terminologies. The sum of all wx must be 1. A possible

pre-configuration is to set all seven weighting parameters to a value of 1/7, depending on the

relevance that is given to the specific Dfx parameter. In case in one or both definitions no

information on one or more Dfx parameters is given the respective weighting factor needs to

be set to 0 (example: no information on the type of organisation is given). In such cases it has

to be ensured that the sum of all weighting factors is still 1, in case of equal weight of six

specified sub-parameters the remaining weighting parameters might obtain a value of 1/6

each. The higher the number of not specified sub-parameters, the lower the specification

degree gets.

One selected choice of a parameter (e.g. Geo for Dfsce) for one or both terminologies



1 …. One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first



applied.

Rule I. Two selected choices of a parameter (e.g. Geo & Infra for Dfsce) for one or both

terminologies

0 …... No match between any complying parameters (e.g. governmental, state), match of “not


0.5 … One match between the complying parameters of the two terms (e.g. both have first


1 ….…Two complying parameters, e.g. first responders and practitioners.


applied.

Rule II. Three or more selected choices of a parameter (e.g. Geo, Fire and Infra for Dfsce)

for one or both terminologies





0.75… Two complying parameters, e.g. first responders and practitioners.

1 ……. Three or more complying parameters.



www.episecc.eu

Specification degree

The context indicator is composed out of five, the definition out of seven additive terms (see

Annex A, 2 and 3). In several cases one or both context descriptions (such as scopes) or

definitions do not contain information on all sub-parameters such as type of organisation or

degree of escalation. In such cases a comparison is not possible, the category “not specified”

has to be selected for the respective sub-parameter. The respective weighting parameter

factor has to be set to 0 (e.g., in case of no specification of a phase, “not specified” has to be

chosen out of the Dfpha categories and the weighting factor w2 has to be set to 0). The more

sub-parameters cannot be specified, the less specific the information achieved by applying the

indicator is getting. In the worst case, only one sub-parameter might be described in both

definitions or contexts. In such a case the value of the indicator might still reach a value of one

not taking into account the very limited information available for the similarity analysis.

In order to take the number of applicable sub-parameters of an indicator into account, the

specification degree is introduced. It is recommended to correct the calculated value of the

definition or context indicator by multiplying it with the specification degree to compensate for

limited available information related to a certain number of described sub-parameters.

Table 20 gives an overview of the specification degree for the context indicator.

Table 20: Specification degrees for the context indicator

No. of SP 1 2 3 4 5

SD 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

No. of SP: Number of subparameters (e.g. Range of Escalation) where information is available

in both context descriptions.

SD: Specification Degree for the correction of the context indicator.

The adjusted context indicator can then be calculated as:

𝐴𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑑 ∗ 𝑆𝐷

The following table gives an overview of the specification degree for the context indicator:

Table 21: Specification degrees for the definition indicator

No. of SP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SD 0,14 0,29 0,43 0,57 0,71 0,86 1

No. of SP: Number of sub-parameters (e.g. Range of Escalation) where information is available

in both definitions

SD: Specification Degree for the correction of the definition indicator



www.episecc.eu

The adjusted definition indicator can then be calculated as

𝐴𝐷𝑒𝑓𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝐼𝑛𝑑 ∗ 𝑆𝐷

Annex D – Predefined ranges of indicators

This section includes the multiple choice selections for all sub categories defined in Annex A.

They are listed in the order of appearance in Annex A.

Type of Organisation

The organization and managing bodies of resources and responsibilities for addressing all

aspects of emergencies and effectively respond to a hazardous event or a disaster. They can be

explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the definition and offer equivalent choice.

Preselection for multiple choice:

Governmental,

Industry / other business,

Standardisation,

Research and Education,

NGOs,

International,

General public,

First responders,

Practitioners,

Other (to be specified),

Not Specified.

Phase

The temporal or rather incident oriented location of a definition is focused on the setting of

the disaster management cycle. Different models are existing for this pattern but are basically

described as:

Prevention (mitigation),

Preparedness (resilience),

Response,

Recovery,


Not Specified.



www.episecc.eu

The term can be relevant for one, some or all of the phases. Looking at the range of application

of a terminology it might be (predominantly) developed to be applied in the response phase, to

give an example.

Range of escalation

Regarding the overall objective of the CWA, it focuses on large scale events. However, it is

highly relevant to identify terms also used for small scale incidents like common emergencies,

disasters (large scale) or other ranges of escalation. The preselection thus includes following

categories:

Emergency (small scale),

Disaster (large scale),


Not Specified.

Again, the defined issue can be subject to one or more of the categories.

Scenario of application

To foster interoperability and facilitate a common understanding of the sub-sets of the

definition the scenarios were oriented on the code denoting the category of the subject event

of the alert message of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)15 and can also be used in the

intended domain of application.

The preselection thus includes the following:

"Geo” - Geophysical (inc. landslide),

“Met” - Meteorological (inc. flood),

“Safety” - General emergency and public safety,

“Security” - Law enforcement, military, homeland and local/private security,

“Rescue” - Rescue and recovery,

“Fire” - Fire suppression and rescue,

“Health” - Medical and public health,

“Env” - Pollution and other environmental,

“Transport” - Public and private transportation,

“Infra” - Utility, telecommunication, other non-transport infrastructure,

“CBRNE” – Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or Explosives

Other,

Not Specified.

15

Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2-os.html (last access 01.09.2017)


http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2-os.html


www.episecc.eu

Object

The definition of the relevant objects “used” or manipulated in the regarding context were

highly abstracted up to the following categories:

groups of persons,

equipment,

infrastructure,

concept.

Thus, all included units with active and passive role in the environment of the term can be

subsumed and included.

Effect

The effects in the course of this definition and specifically for further use in the selection and

information gathering process of the intended users of the CWA output can be simplified in the

following overall categories:

positive,

negative,

neutral/none.

Type of geographical area

The type of region can be defined in accordance with the above mentioned categories as:

Local,

Regional,

National,

International (EU, continent, cross border),


Not Specified.

Sub-categories can then be expanded, e.g. the phase “Preparedness” could include training,

crisis plan preparations, evaluation, warning systems, the phae “Mitigation” could include risk

management, public education etc.

In the initial step, there is no need to create a complete tree of all possible phases at this point,

but as more examples are collected, more sub-activities will emerge. Then it is important to

realise that one term used in one phase may have a different meaning in another phase for the

same responders. For example, a HAZARD during operational response means that it is

something that is physically on site, (risk of chemical spill or explosion). In this case, we are

using the JESIP operational hazards’ list. A HAZARD in the “Preparedness phase” means

something different: it is the potential cause of disaster, which determines the type of the

emergency. In this case, we are using the WHO or the FEMA classifications.



www.episecc.eu

Annex E – Informative references

• European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) Prieur, M. (2009).

Ethical Principles on Disaster Risk Reduction and People’s Resilience.

https://edoc.coe.int/en/environment/7166-ethical-principles-on-disaster-risk-reduction-

and-people-s-resilience.html

• HM Government. (2013). Emergency Response and Recovery Non statutory guidance

accompanying the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/25348

8/Emergency_Response_and_Recovery_5th_edition_October_2013.pdf

• IFRC CoC International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. (1991). Code of

conduct - International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Retrieved

August 22, 2017, from http://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/who-we-are/the-movement/code-of-

conduct/

• ICRC Professional standards for Protection Work 2013

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0999.pdf

• ICRC Protection Policy, IRRC, Vo. 90, No. 871 (September 2008)

• ISO 22300 Societal Security

• Larkin, G. (2001). Ethics of Teamwork in Emergency and Disaster Management - The

Centrality of Virtue. In P. Dave, S. Gupta, N. Parmar, & S. Kant (Eds.), Emergency Medical

Services and Disaster Management Jaypee Brothers Publishers, 204–217.

• Lexicon of UK civil protection terminology - version 2.1.1. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-responder-interoperability-

lexicon

• Prieur, M. (2009). Ethical Principles on Disaster Risk Reduction and People’s Resilience.

Retrieved from https://edoc.coe.int/en/environment/7166-ethical-principles-on-

disaster-risk-reduction-and-people-s-resilience.html

• SDSIE Crisis & crisis management terminology

• Tactical Situation Object (TSO) – Terminology.

• UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai Framework)


https://edoc.coe.int/en/environment/7166-ethical-principles-on-disaster-risk-reduction-and-people-s-resilience.html


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253488/Emergency_Response_and_Recovery_5th_edition_October_2013.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253488/Emergency_Response_and_Recovery_5th_edition_October_2013.pdf

http://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/who-we-are/the-movement/code-of-conduct/

http://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/who-we-are/the-movement/code-of-conduct/

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0999.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-responder-interoperability-lexicon

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-responder-interoperability-lexicon



Date post:	17-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamhanh
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

D9.1. Standardisation - EPISECC · Example of the comparison: Ambulance _ vs ^Emergency Services _...

Documents