d4.2. taxonomy model - episecc 2... · 2017-12-21 · the disaster project, where an ontology named...

D4.2. – Taxonomy model

Grant agreement number: 607078 Date of deliverable: 2015-12-31

Date of project start: 2014-06-01 Date of submission: 2016-01-28

Duration of project: 36 months Deliverable approved by: TUG, TCCA

Lead Beneficiary: UNIST

Contributing Beneficiaries: FRQ, IES, AIT

Establish Pan-European Information Space to Enhance seCurity of Citizens

Executive Summary

The deliverable provides detailed description of the EPISECC Taxonomy methodology, structure and

its preliminary, internal validation against episodes developed in the Deliverable D4.1. This is the first

version of the Taxonomy and it will be further validated during the proof of concept in WP6 and final

version will be provided in the Task 4.5. The methodology explains the Taxonomy’s roles and

structure, as well as the theoretical basis for its development. The description is focused on the basic

features of the structure: concepts, facets and terms. The methodology outlines commonly used

principles for the validation of the Taxonomy structure.

The sources of information for concepts and terms are: EPISECC Inventory, Common Information

Space (CIS), concepts from the conceptualisation of the project. Moreover, additional information is

obtained from EPISECC Advisory Board members and state of the art analysis performed in WP2 and

WP3. An analysis of the Inventory in the context of the Taxonomy development has been already

provided in the Deliverable D4.1. The Inventory contains typical critical events in seven European

countries over the last ten years, including flooding, avalanches, storms, extreme temperatures,

earthquakes, wild fires and a transport incident during a severe snow storm among others. Herein,

the summary from the analysis of the EPISECC Inventory and the crucial findings are highlighted. The

basis for the identification of concepts is standards and guidelines frequently used by first

responders.

An overview of the software specialised for taxonomy management the selection of software for the

EPISECC Taxonomy is elaborated. Software requirements are identified and superimposed over

software functions. The software requirements comprise the development of the EPISECC Taxonomy,

but also development of the EPISECC Ontology model. The Protégé software is selected as its both

desktop and web version fulfil the requirements.

Concepts and facets are systematically chosen and defined taking into account future transformation

into standards and translation into different languages as well as in terms of its relationship with

other terms. The main three distinctive concepts, i.e. facets are: Capacity, Disaster and Organisation.

The detailed structure of the Taxonomy is given in the Annex. The final version will be delivered in

Task 4.5, after external validation during the proof of concept phase.

The preliminary internal validation of the Taxonomy is performed using three episodes and their use

cases based on the EPISECC basic scenarios developed in the Deliverable 4.1. The episodes are based

on partners’ experience, preliminary feedback from the EPISECC Advisory Board members and

interoperability patterns from EPISECC Database. The validation follows effective approach and

analyse if the use cases’ information items are covered by concepts from the EPISECC Taxonomy. The

analysis firstly defines steps linked to use cases and their information content and then performs

mapping to the EPISECC Taxonomy. The validation gives some suggestions for improvements of the

Taxonomy during the proof of concept phase, when the external validation by end users is planned.

2016-01-28 EPISECC_WP4_D4.2 Taxonomy model for submission-new.docx 79 |3

www.episecc.eu

Table of Content

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 5

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 6

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 7

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 10

2.1. Taxonomy structure ............................................................................................................... 10

2.2. Concepts and facets ............................................................................................................... 12

2.3. Terms ..................................................................................................................................... 15

3. Sources of information for development of the EPISECC Taxonomy ............................................ 18

3.1. Results from the analysis of the Pan-European Inventory of disasters ................................. 18

3.2. Taxonomy and Common Information Space ......................................................................... 22

3.3. Concepts defined during the formulation of the project ...................................................... 23

4. Software for taxonomy management ........................................................................................... 24

4.1. An overview of the software specialised for taxonomy management .................................. 24

4.2. Selection process for the software ........................................................................................ 25

4.3. Description of the selected software Protégé ....................................................................... 27

4.3.1. WebProtégé ................................................................................................................... 28

4.3.2. Protégé Desktop ............................................................................................................ 28

4.4. The EPISECC Taxonomy in OWL model .................................................................................. 29

5. Taxonomy model ........................................................................................................................... 31

5.1. Universe of discourse ............................................................................................................. 31

5.2. Model structure ..................................................................................................................... 31

5.3. Concepts and terms ............................................................................................................... 32

5.4. Model consistency ................................................................................................................. 33

6. Validation ...................................................................................................................................... 37

6.1. Concepts and methodology ................................................................................................... 37

6.2. Results of validation ............................................................................................................... 37

6.2.1. Episode 1 - Earthquake scenario ................................................................................... 38

http://www.episecc.eu/


www.episecc.eu

6.2.2. Episode 2 - Earthquake scenario ................................................................................... 41

6.2.3. Episode 3 - Wildfire ....................................................................................................... 43

6.2.4. Summary of the validation ............................................................................................ 45

7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 47

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 48

Annex ..................................................................................................................................................... 50



www.episecc.eu

List of Tables

Table 1: Comparison of identified domains .......................................................................................... 20

Table 2: EPISECC requirements on the software for taxonomy and ontology model management .... 25

Table 3: Overview of fulfilment of requirements by the preselected software tools........................... 27

Table 4: Taxonomy entities represented by OWL model entities ......................................................... 30

Table 5: Principles and EPISECC Taxonomy .......................................................................................... 34

Table 6: Aftershock causing the partial collapse of the road and rail infrastructures .......................... 38

Table 7: Dam break and flooding .......................................................................................................... 41

Table 8: Collaboration between local (Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and foreign teams (Italian

fire Brigades) for fire control and people evacuation activities ............................................................ 43



www.episecc.eu

List of Figures

Figure 1: Relation between the universe of discourse and the taxonomy ........................................... 11

Figure 2: An example - a facet “disaster” is further described with more facets ................................. 14

Figure 3: An example of a compound term ........................................................................................... 16

Figure 4: The role of the taxonomy in CIS ............................................................................................. 22

Figure 5: An overview of the software for taxonomy management, adapted from [2] ....................... 24

Figure 6: Semantic complexity, adapted from [18] ............................................................................... 25

Figure 7: A screenshot of the EPISECC taxonomy in WebProtégé ........................................................ 28

Figure 8: A screenshot of the EPISECC taxonomy in Protégé Desktop ................................................. 29



www.episecc.eu

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym /

Abbreviation Description

ARIS Architecture of Integrated Information Systems

EMSI Emergency Management Shared Information

GUI Graphical User Interface

OSOCC On-Site Operations Coordination Centre

OWL Web Ontology Language

RDF Resource Description Framework

RDFS Resource Description Framework Schema

RIF Rule Interchange Format

SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System

UCL Université catholique de Louvain

XML Extensible Markup Language

ZTHES The Zthes specifications for thesaurus representation, access and navigation.



www.episecc.eu

1. Introduction

There are everlasting efforts to sort, classify and describe concepts related to the emergency

management considering events of different scales, from disasters to incidents happening on

everyday basis. The results are significant amount of organisational structures having different

perspectives (first responders, disaster managers, victims, humanitarian organisations, etc.). The

structures vary from simple dictionaries or vocabularies to complex ontologies or even semantic

networks. The most used are standards commonly organised as dictionaries or vocabularies, which

are easy to use and understand by various types of planners and practitioners.

There are also a respectful number of taxonomies and related, semantically richer structures, like

ontologies developed. Taxonomies are mainly focused on medical emergency aspects during, while

others are focused on disasters themselves, risk assessment or other phases of the disaster

management cycle, mainly preparedness and relief. Herein, it is worth mentioning the effort done in

the DISASTER project, where an ontology named EMERGEL is developed [28]. It is composed of a core

(abstract, upper-level ontology including transversal modules: space-time representation) and

vertical (associated with specific domains) which are based on three distinct concepts: Objects,

Constructs and Activities. The concepts of the EMERGEL ontology are based on existing disaster

classifications in security domains, like insurance, freight transport and critical infrastructures. The

EMERGEL core ontology contains classes and their properties related to emergencies and the

stakeholders involved in a crisis situation. It is also enriched by transversal contents that describe

general concepts such as time and space.

Another interesting effort to define concepts could be found in the Finnish Ontology Library Service

ONKI, named the Disaster Ontology. It includes around hundred concepts including generic ones, like

day, month and year [30].

Finally, it is also worth citing the initiative related to the common classification of disasters and

terminology of perils which represents important step towards development of a standardised

international classification in the field of disaster management. It is described in the UCL working

paper [1].

Comparing the abovementioned ontologies and other structures that could be found in the literature

or web, the EPISECC Taxonomy (hereinafter also referred to as the Taxonomy) has a distinctive

universe of discourse, which is focused on the disasters’ relief period, namely first 72 hours after

disaster’s sudden impact or early warning system’s alert. It also concerns large aspects of the

concepts, like processes, data, organizations, disasters, resources. It is constructed considering the

purpose of the EPISECC project it is tailored to fulfil the following objectives:

to describe end-users’ (both humanitarian organisations and classical first responders like

fire fighters) formal definitions from dictionaries and/or taxonomies, as well as everyday

communication;

to incorporate existing concepts from commonly used standards, domains or classes at

certain level of abstraction, used by system developers.



www.episecc.eu

Moreover, the concepts developed in the Taxonomy will serve as a semantic basis for the ontology

which will be developed in Task 4.3, and it will be a part of the EPISECC solution for the common

information space. This report delivers the detail methodological approach for the development of

EPISECC Taxonomy, its structure and content.

The Taxonomy described in this report is the first version, since it will be further validated and

updated in WP6 during the proof of concept. The results of the validation will be processed in the

Task 4.5 and elaborated in the Deliverable 4.5.

The report is structured in seven chapters. Following this introduction, the second chapter deals with

analysis of the methodology for the taxonomy development, including the main definitions and

principles. Definitions are related to concepts, facets and classification. Even though the

development of the taxonomy depends mostly on the object it describes and there are not strict

approaches, the principles could serve as guidelines.

The third chapter describes the sources of information used for the Taxonomy development. The

results from the analysis of the Pan-European Inventory of disasters (Deliverable 4.1) are summarised

and elaborated. The roles of the CIS and concepts defined during the conceptualisation of the project

are explained, as well.

The fourth chapter is dedicated to the selection of the software for taxonomy management. The

study starts with an identification of the available software and continues with the comparison of

their characteristics. The selected software and its characteristic are described in detail.

The fifth chapter explains the model of the Taxonomy. It describes the universe of discourse, explains

the structure of the Taxonomy and defines the approach for choosing the concepts and naming

them. Furthermore, the consistency of the Taxonomy is explained and compared to the selected

principles. The detailed structure of the taxonomy and descriptions of the concepts are given in the

Annex.

The sixth chapter delivers validation and suggestions how to cover eventual missing concepts and

cover the gap towards standards which will be used for message modelling in CIS. The report ends

with conclusions and follow-up suggestions.



www.episecc.eu

2. Methodology

The role of the taxonomy in the EPISECC project is threefold:

taxonomy is the basis for interpretation and mutual understanding of first responders’

practices during the disaster response phase;

taxonomy comprises situational awareness during the disaster response phase to its maximal

semantic extent in an arranged and classified way;

taxonomy improves navigation and retrieval of information using CIS.

To define the universe of the discourse and the Taxonomy concepts three sources of information and

perspectives are being considered:

Inventory of pan-European disasters, i.e. EPISECC Inventory,

Common Information Space architecture,

concepts defined during the formulation of the project, as well as

other available sources dealing with disaster management.

The analysis of the EPISECC Inventory (hereinafter also referred to as the Inventory) with a respect to

the Taxonomy concepts and Taxonomy’s relation to other two sources of information are given in

the Chapter 3.

2.1. Taxonomy structure

The structure of a taxonomy could be:

hierarchical (a classification from general to specific),

faceted (a multidimensional classification), and

a combination of hierarchies and facets.

The most common type of taxonomy is a single hierarchical taxonomy with simple IS-A relationships

between concepts in the structure. The term is a label to a concept, which is a part of a taxonomy. To

make it easier for a reader to understand, the development of the taxonomy definitions from [6] are

taken and used herein. Therefore, a terminology T is a set of names, called terms. Beside the names,

terms could be numbers, sets and intervals. A taxonomy is a pair (T, ≤), where T is a terminology and

≤ is a reflexive and transitive binary relation over T, called subsumption. If a and b are terms of T and

a ≤ b then a is subsumed by b, or b subsumes a. It also could be said that a is narrower than b, or that

b is broader than a. Each term represents a concept, namely it is a “name” of a concept.

Consequently, it could be said that concept A is subsumed by concept B, noted as A ≤ B, if the set of

objects classified under A is intentionally constrained to be equal to or a subset of the set of objects

classified under B (IS-A relationship). For example, flood ≤ disaster or fireman ≤ first responder.

Objects, which are the elements of finite sets called domains, are classified under the concepts of a

taxonomy. The universe of discourse is the main concept described by taxonomy. Figure 1 depicts

the general principle of putting into relation, i.e. classification, the objects form domains under the

taxonomy’s concepts.



www.episecc.eu

Figure 1: Relation between the universe of discourse and the taxonomy

There are no formal rules for the definition of domains, and consequently the concepts for their

classification. However, end-users’ heuristic knowledge is usually the main source of information for

identification process. The basic assessment criteria are [6]:

basic set is a minimum number of domains, which fully describes the universe of discourse –

a response to a critical event;

in principle, domains should be independent;

domains could be partially redundant if such approach facilitates end-users operational

capability.

A faceted taxonomy is organized as a set of independent, i.e. orthogonal concepts (facets) to be used

to describe universe of discourse. According to G.M. Sacco [6], such concepts, which are mutually

independent, are relatively stable in time, so that faceted structure needs almost no maintenance. A

faceted taxonomy is defined as set F = {F1, . . . , Fk} where Fi = (Ti , ≤ i ), for i = 1, . . . , k and all Ti are

disjoint [6]. A real object can be described, i.e. classified using a set of concepts from one or several

facets called a compound term [6].

The relationships between facets could vary, which is much easier to maintain than concepts

themselves. A facet is one side or criterion of a concept and it may have its own hierarchical

taxonomy of further sub-facets. It may even have multiple top-term hierarchies of similar-type terms

on the same subject, and there are no relationships between terms in different facets [9]. According

to [6] a faceted taxonomy has some advantages by comparison to a single hierarchical taxonomy, like

conceptual clarity, compactness, and scalability. Facets of a concept should be exhaustive and,

preferably, mutually exclusive, i.e. orthogonal. Moreover, facets are seen as abstract concepts, with

names or terms only as labels. Classifying the end users’ objects, which could be unstructured or

organised in dictionaries, taxonomies, terminologies and similar structures, under the EPISECC

Taxonomy requires finding the semantically matching concepts. Object names and concepts terms do

not need to match, they could be in different language and treated as synonyms.

In order to start with building the taxonomy, the main concept of the universe of discourse has to be

defined. For the purpose of the EPISECC project the universe of discourse is defined as "a response to



www.episecc.eu

a critical event" (Deliverable 4.1). It is also agreed that response to a critical event is “a complex

dynamic system composed of actions taken in a certain spatial, technical, organisational, and legal

environment during a disaster, including one or more situations which straightforwardly lead to a

disaster, as well as handing over to a recovery phase”.

2.2. Concepts and facets

As already mentioned in the introduction of this chapter the analysis of concepts is based on the

EPISECC Inventory, Common Information Space architecture and concepts defined during the

formulation of the project. It also includes a study of existing standards and taxonomies developed

by international institutions. Concepts and terms in the field of disaster and emergency management

as well as any other structured knowledge may be found as directories or vocabularies of national

and international organisations dealing with disasters. The international organisations which include

response, recovery or relief organisations (like Red Cross) are very important for the recognition of

concepts. Controlled vocabularies and standards are also very valuable since they are created to

guarantee the compatibility and interoperability, so they already contain common concepts. Besides

the documents listed in Chapter 2, the international standards, ISO 22300:2012(E), Societal security

— Terminology [14] and ISO 22320:2011(E), Societal security — Emergency management —

Requirements for incident response [15] has been considered as well.

The first step is to describe the main concept with minimum independent individual sub-concepts of

discourse. However, the sub-concepts should comprehensively cover the whole main concept. There

is no common, unique or most used methodology for recognition of sub-concepts, i.e. facets. It is

defined by Ranganathan [19] and Spiteri [23] what a faceted structure should have, but there is not a

methodology that could be followed to obtain the faceted structure [7]. Since the original idea was

developed for the classification in libraries [19], the whole concept and its application is commonly

used for social tagging and documentation classification processes. For example, Rantagan [19] in his

Colon Classification theory proposes five facets: Personality - Who; Matter - What; Energy - How;

Space - Where and Time -When. Spiteri [24] examines the use of facets to facilitate the efficient

organization and browsing of tags and attempts to develop a common methodology for development

of facets and concludes that even though a number of studies exists a clear explanation of theoretical

frameworks or methodologies for recognition of facets is missing. He also states that examined

studies do not address any strategies by which to enable end users to evaluate the usefulness and

applicability of recognised facets.

Considering exhaustiveness of facets and concepts, in his “canon of exhaustiveness”, Ranganathan

[20] states that all classes and sub-classes in a classification system should present all aspects of their

parent universe. Oppositely, Spiteri [23] argues that the exhaustiveness is quite hard to determine

and consequently to maintain. Herein, in EPISECC Taxonomy, the exhaustiveness of the concepts

goes up to the functional scope, meaning that the goal is to include only concepts relevant to the

universe of discourse and not all concepts like in general taxonomies.



www.episecc.eu

One of the approaches to define facets is to identify criteria, which can be used to partition a given

concept [23]. A system analysis approach is quite useful method for identification of criteria. The

method suggests identifying the objectives or goals which have to be met during the response to a

critical event, and then to define the criteria from identified objectives. In that case, end-users have

to specify their objectives with regard to the decision problem, i.e. the universe of discourse and its

concepts. The objectives could be further analysed and then transformed into criteria. Even though

this procedure is a goal-driven comprehension of the universe of discourse, it also provides end-users

requirements for the common information space. This is helpful during the identification of end-

users needs and further during the structuring of the navigation and retrieval strategy from the

Taxonomy using facets (criteria).

As described in Deliverable 4.1, some objectives that may be useful during construction of Taxonomy

facets have been identified from the consultations with the project’s Advisory Board members. These

objectives are analysed and summarised as follows:

to minimise impacts from hazards,

to maximise the protection of vulnerable groups (elderly people, children, people with

special needs),

to maximise the efficiency during the treatment of victims,

to maximise the saving of animals’ lives (animal stocks),

to maximise the protection of critical infrastructure,

to maximise the efficiency in compensation of temporary loss of supplies and services

temporarily (like water, electricity),

to minimise social and psychological impacts (like fear, anxiety, panic),

to minimise the time for (physical) recovery.

For the purpose of the EPISECC project, the evaluation of facets will be performed in three directions.

First direction goes toward using the Inventory, as it will contain end users’ descriptions of disasters,

and consequently depicts their views of the taxonomy concept. The other directions will include

direct end users’ contribution, mainly through consultations with the project’s advisory board and

CIS requirements through used standards. The facets should be readily identifiable, particularly those

that describe the concepts in the most common way. The objective is to recognise the most

descriptive and/or most usable ones. Besides the usual situations where users of taxonomy are

general public (like web store, or library), herein there is a pretty much consistent end users

community. If the context “a response to a critical event” is analysed from all actors that take part in

the major disasters we may face several different perspectives.

As discussed in the Deliverable 4.1, the main approach in the project is to recognise concepts and

their terms from the Inventory, consultations with project’s advisory board and from the standards

to be used in CIS, using following rules [25]:

definition of appropriate concepts and accompanied terms are done according to the defined

criteria,

terms should be valid, in the sense that it applies to at least one object of a concept,



www.episecc.eu

different aspects of the concept should be identified.

The valuable source for the recognition of adequate terms used by end users are past events

described by classes in the EPISECC Inventory, for example from processes or data. Taxonomy terms

could also be fields of information of the Inventory: phases of disaster management, management

level, material resources, human resources, etc. To find common terms for same concepts, the terms

are compared and their frequencies of usage could be measured, like it is indicated in the Deliverable

4.1:

how many institutions/organisations’ types are using a certain term,

how many countries are using a certain term,

how many events/disasters they are connected by terms.

The section 3.1 gives the highlights and main findings of the analysis of the EPISECC Inventory.

The overall approach is to define concepts, i.e. facets, wherever possible (repeated faceting process),

and to classify facet into hierarchy when the decomposition comes to phase when only subtypes of

the concept is needed. The first step is to find basic concepts that define “response to a critical

event”. Once the basic, preferably mutually independent, either concepts or facets are defined, they

will be examined for further decomposition or classification to facets or hierarchy, respectively. The

process continues up to the terminal taxonomy nodes. Figure 2 shows an example where a concept,

which is used as facet “Disaster” is further described with more facets each having hierarchical

structure. For the sake of clarity the picture depicts only two facets with their substructure.

Figure 2: An example - a facet “disaster” is further described with more facets

Starting in the field of library, the theory of facet analysis developed some principles (Ranthagan [20],

Classification Research Group (CRG), Spiteri [22] and [6]) which should be followed in order to get the

taxonomy as functional as possible. However, sometimes some principles are substituted by other



www.episecc.eu

solutions which are more suitable for a particular situation or universe of discourse. It usually

happens when a taxonomy is not a general one but functional, focused on a particular problem, like

EPISECC Taxonomy. For faceted taxonomy, which is not focused on bibliographic classification

systems studied by Ranthagan [20] and CRG, the usually applied principles are the following:

principle of differentiation, which recommends that hierarchy either sole or within a facet

should clearly distinguish its sub-concepts;

principle of relevance, which advises that facets should describe the universe of discourse;

principle of permanence, which recommends that facets should describe permanent features

of the described concept, meaning that there are no null values or unclassified situations for

a facet;

principle of homogeneity, which ensures that concepts are consistent representing only one

characteristic of a universe of discourse;

principle of mutual exclusivity, which demands that facets are orthogonal;

principle of ascertainability, which requires that the criterion for facet has to be

ascertainable, meaning that it has to be applicable to a particular situation, existence of

unknown or not classifying under a facet;

principle of relevant succession, which advises that the position of either concepts or facets

reflect scopes they have in the universe of discourse, meaning parent concepts are broader

in their meanings than sub-concepts;

principle of consistent succession, which recommends that the order of concepts or facets

should not be modified once it is established, except there is a change of the universe of

discourse [23].

The relationships among the concepts are also very important for a faceted taxonomy. In classical

hierarchic taxonomies, subsumption is the only relation between concepts, (IS-A relationship).

Introducing facets, relationships between concepts can be inferred through the base extensional

inference rule: two concepts (facets) A and B are related if and only if there is at least one object

from a domain which is classified at the same time under A or under one of A’s descendants (sub-

taxonomy) and under B or under one of B’s descendants (sub-taxonomy). [6].

The base extensional inference rule can be extended to cover the relationship between a given

concept C and a concept expressed by an arbitrary subset S of the universe: C is related to S if and

only if there is at least one object o in S which is also object in C or, equivalently, if and only if

(objects in C) ∩ S ≠ ∅ [6]. The extensional inference rule allows modelling of multiple inheritance in

two ways:

explicitly, by defining a specific concept multiple times as sub-concept of different upper

concepts, or

implicitly, by using compound concepts.

2.3. Terms



www.episecc.eu

Concepts and facets (as a special type of concept) are represented by terms, which may also be

considered as their names. The definition of a concept C as a set of objects classified under C

indicates that the concept term or name is just a label and there may be different captions, possibly

multilingual, for C. In the EPISECC Taxonomy the primary terms are in English but they may have

synonyms either in English and other languages.

Ranganathan states in his Canon of Currency [20] that the terminology used in a classification system

should reflect current usage in the subject field. Even though this statement may imply relatively

frequent updating of a taxonomy, the EPISECC taxonomy will search for terms a target audience, i.e.

first responders are familiar with.

With faceted taxonomy, each real object can be classified using a compound term, which is a set of

terms from one or several facets (Figure 3). Compound term s over taxonomy T is any subset of T, i.e.

any element of P(T), where P(T) denotes the power set of T [6].

Figure 3: An example of a compound term

Not all possible compound terms are valid. There are many different ways for specification of the set

of valid compound terms in advance. Since the EPISECC taxonomy is functional one, the validation of

compound terms is left to the end users, who will perform semantic mapping of concepts from their

formal or non-formal dictionaries, taxonomies or similar sources to the EPISECC Taxonomy.

Finally, the methodology includes validation of the taxonomy both structure and concepts using the

episodes developed particularly for this purposes. The episode is a set of use cases which are logically

connected and coordinated in time. The methodology for development of the episodes, as well as

episodes and use cases are given in Deliverable 4.1. The validation procedure is described in Chapter



www.episecc.eu

5. The validation provided in this deliverable is from the perspective of CIS only and is related to the

standards which will be used for the modelling of messages. More comprehensive validation will be

performed in the WP6 during the proof of concept. After that validation the EPISECC taxonomy will

be updated with new findings and the final version will be delivered.



www.episecc.eu

3. Sources of information for development of the EPISECC Taxonomy

This chapter outlines the sources of information which have been consulted during the development

of the Taxonomy. Since the Taxonomy is strictly focused on one particular, relatively narrow,

universe of discourse it is important that both concepts and their terms are coming from the relevant

sources. In the following sections there main sources of information are described:

summary of the results from the analysis of the EPISECC Inventory given in the Deliverable

4.1,

the function of the Taxonomy in the Common Information Space, and

concepts defined during the conceptualisation of the project.

3.1. Results from the analysis of the Pan-European Inventory of disasters

The Pan-European Inventory of disasters, i.e. EPISECC Inventory is mostly focused to the main

European disaster. In the moment of the analysis it has included information from 46 interviewees

who have accessed the specially designed EPISECC Questionnaire. Interviewees were coming from

various stakeholders including the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU) and national

agencies. The information collected through EPISECC Questionnaire served as input for the EPISECC

Inventory. The Inventory analysis with a respect to the Taxonomy is elaborated in the Deliverable 4.1.

The framework of the EPISECC Inventory was built with the approach of the “Architecture of

Integrated Information Systems” (ARIS) which was defined by A. Scheer [21]. The selected and

adopted model allows covering an optimal range for gathering information from main information

units such as: Organization, Disaster, Data, Processes, Standards and Tools. Details about the

structure of the EPISECC Inventory and EPISECC Questionnaire are given in Deliverables 3.2, 3.3 and

3.4.

The main findings, emerged from the EPISECC Inventory, which are relevant for the taxonomy

building process, could be summarised through the analysis of:

standards, guidelines and similar documents used by end users, particularly during the

response phase;

standards and similar documents or structures used by broader emergency and disaster

community, mentioned in the EPISECC Inventory structure (like drop-down menus);

pre-questions used for structuring the EPISECC Inventory;

the EPISECC Inventory’s free text fields;

additional information obtained from the Advisory Board members, based on ideas acquired

during the evaluation of the EPISECC Inventory.

The analysis of the EPISECC Inventory given in the Deliverable 4.1 was primarily focused on the

standards, guidelines or messaging protocols used by interviewees’ organisations as the main

sources of concepts they use during the response phase. The most used are:

CAP (Common Alerting Protocol) [17],



www.episecc.eu

International Search and Rescue Advisory Group Guidelines (INSARAG) [13],

UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction [26],

GDACS Guidelines For Information Exchange in Disaster [8],

INSPIRE Directive [12],

International Red Cross Society and Red Crescent Society - Introduction to the guidelines

[11],

TSO / CWA 15931-Part 2 (Codes for the message structure) [4],

Sphere Handbook - Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response [10].

The other source of the valuable information on concepts used in practice is a set of questions posed

by end users during the conceptualisation of the EPISECC Questionnaire structure (Deliverable 3.3).

These questions were starting point for the identification of the main fields for the Questionnaire

structure. The process was composed of several steps of selection, structuring and aggregation of the

most relevant information. The final phase contained the most aggregated concepts / terms that

were identified from the comprehensive analysis during the transformation of questions posed by

stakeholders to fields of information in the EPISECC Questionnaire. These concepts are basis for the

conceptualisation of the EPISECC Taxonomy (Deliverable 4.1). The extraction from the overview of

concepts given in the deliverable 4.1 is the following:

Collaboration between first responders: How was it done? What type of data? What type of

measure? With whom do they collaborate?

Activation of emergency centres;

Affected countries, infrastructure;

Alternative communication tools;

Availability of organisations’ tools and data;

Course of actions;

Local and international command units;

Tools for decision making, situational awareness, operational control and interoperability;

Levels of: organisation, operation in a country, organization in a country, phases in disaster

management, scope of applications, classification;

Language barrier;

Resources costs;

Handling processes;

Communication tools;

Mobilisation: services at strategic/tactical/OSOCC levels;

Information exchange, what tools to be used if telephone fails;

The Deliverable 4.1 brings the set of basic domains which have been identified from the:

CAP (Common Alerting Protocol) [17],

TSO / CWA 15931-Part 2 (Codes for the message structure) [4],

concepts defined during the conceptualisation of the project, which were the basis for the

Inventory structure.



www.episecc.eu

Inventory analysis focused also on identification on potential domains which would become

taxonomy concepts. Some domains have been initially indicated by project definition and the others

are indicated by findings in deliverable D3.2 as well as international standards included in the

Inventory. Table 1 shows the final results of the preliminary comparison of the potential Taxonomy

domains. Some domains are redundant, similar or one could be sub-domain of the other.

Table 1: Comparison of identified domains

Basic Domain Same domain Sub-domains

Disaster Event Area, Meteorology

Processes - -

Data sets - Context, TSO

Management tools - -

Management services - Business models

- -

Organisations Agency Node

Measure Mission Alert

Standards - -

Interoperability - Info, Resource

Module - Resource

Mass media - -

Legislation - -

The brief extraction of the basic domains’ descriptions is:

Disaster “Disaster means any situation which has or may have a severe impact on people, the

environment, or property, including cultural heritage.” [5]

Process is a set of actions, executed by organisational entities, aiming for a certain result, as

defined in deliverable D3.1.

A data set is an identifiable collection of data used by end users during the response to a

critical event.

Management tool facilitates both adequate preparedness as well as effective response to

disasters within and outside the EU, as defined in deliverable D3.1.

A business model is a set of interconnected processes, which are modelled for: e.g. internal

communication, coordination, resources management, interaction with citizens, command

and control, communication with other entities, interoperability model, service performance

(outsourced, in house) or financing, as defined in deliverable D3.1.



www.episecc.eu

An organisation is a unit established to meet goals related to disaster management. It is

structured along its management, which defines the relationships between responsibilities,

tasks and its structure.

Measure is a composition of all activities necessary to realise the goal of the initiator

(organisation or a person representing an organisation), as defined in deliverable D3.2.

“A standard is a document that sets out requirements for a specific item, material,

component, system or service, or describes in detail a particular method or procedure.

Standards facilitate international trade by ensuring compatibility and interoperability of

components, products and services.” [27]

The interoperability is the communication between the different organisation units during a

process and includes the used communication medium, the type of data, the versioned tools,

which was used to send and receive the data, and the date. Optionally it is possible to specify

a standard, as defined in deliverable D3.2. Within the analysis of tools in deliverable D2.1

three layers of interoperability are considered: physical, syntactical and semantic.

Module: “A self-sufficient and autonomous predefined task- and needs-driven arrangement

of Member States’ capabilities or a mobile operational team of the Member States,

representing a combination of human and material means that can be described in terms of

its capacity for intervention or by the task(s) it is able to undertake.” [5]

The mass media used to inform and alert citizens about the potential threat and related

developments during response phase. Within the scope of the EPISECC project we consider

the social media to be part of mass media communication. Social media, on the other hand,

has to be somewhat differentiated form (outbound) the mass media as it allows responders

to obtain data from affected population (inbound) in real time and in this way increase their

situational awareness.

A set of laws made by governments and set of international agreements related to the

disaster management and action during the response to a critical event.

The detailed descriptions of basic and other concepts may be found in the Deliverable 4.1.

The analysis of the Inventory has also provided the full study of processes, measures, communication

medium, data sets, standards and tools, which will be valuable during the definition of sub-concepts

in the Taxonomy (Deliverable 4.1, Chapter 4).

The analysis of the Inventory, documented in Deliverable 4.1, revealed the key domains and themes

end users are familiar with during the response to a disaster. The inventory structure has elements

already predefined during the conceptualisation of the project, but some other concepts emerged

from the standards and data sets described and mentioned in the Inventory. The analysis provides a

good starting point for the definition of the Taxonomy concepts. The Inventory as such also provides

a number of processes measures, communication medium, data sets, standards and tools either used

or applied by end users. They should be generalised and incorporated as sub-concepts in the

taxonomy.



www.episecc.eu

3.2. Taxonomy and Common Information Space

Being the main goal of the project, the Common Information Space (CIS) includes appropriate

semantic definitions by taxonomy. The architecture of the CIS is divided into the following layers:

protocol & network interoperability,

information interoperability,

operational interoperability.

Information interoperability could be seen as: physical (data connection), syntactical (data formats),

and semantic (interpretation of the content). Beside the technical prerequisites, well-established

data connections and common data formats semantic interoperability is crucial for automated

information exchange. Therefore, key Taxonomy concepts (like fire truck, command, control, storm

surge, etc.) have to be translated from the terms of the information provider to the EPISECC

Taxonomy and forwarded to the terms of the information receiver (Figure 4). Obviously, there is a

presumption that such double-translation will lead to loss of information. Therefore, the Taxonomy

should be as abstract as possible to mirror all possible concepts that may emerge from the end users

in the future. The high level of the abstraction could sometimes be a problem, for example the

taxonomy does not have some particular concepts which could be crucial in a certain situation. The

variety of end users (from humanitarian organisations to the very technically equipped first

responders) leads to the taxonomy which has large top level structure but shallow depth.

Figure 4: The role of the taxonomy in CIS

The mapping also goes between Taxonomy and terms used for structuring messages in the CIS. So

far, the project team plans to use EMSI, a standard for structured message described in technical

report ISO/TR 22351, Societal security - Emergency management - Message structure for exchange of

information [16]. Consequently, during the development of the Taxonomy, EMSI concepts will be

taken into account. The structure of EMSI is quite deep and goes to a very detail description,

particularly for the resources but, as it is described in section 3.2, it is very hard to tell if it is



www.episecc.eu

exhaustive or not. Therefore, a faceted structure and compound terms may help to construct a

taxonomy which comprises all concepts at higher level of abstraction, not necessarily going into deep

extensions.

Semantic mapping, which happens between agents’ concepts and EPISECC Taxonomy, as well as

between concepts of message structure and EPISECC Taxonomy is not a bijective function. Since the

agents’ concepts are not known a priori the mapping should be flexible. The presumption is that each

concept defined by the agent is mapped to one Taxonomy concept and more then one agent’s

concept can be mapped to the same Taxonomy concept. This will be validated during the proof of

concept in WP6.

3.3. Concepts defined during the formulation of the project

The starting point in the process of a taxonomy development is a scheme that has been developed

during the formulation of the project and follows the EC requirements from the call topic. Generally,

the starting idea comprises basic concepts that could be relevant for the response phase within

complex system of disaster management. These concepts, as described in Deliverable 4.1, are:

process, a set of actions, executed by organisational entities, aiming for a certain result. They

can be structured into: internal communication, coordination, resources management,

interaction with citizens, command and control, communication with other entities,

interoperability actions;

data set, an identifiable collection of data used by end users during the response to a critical

event;

management tool, tool that facilitates both adequate preparedness as well as effective

response to disasters within and outside the EU;

management services - business model, a set of interconnected processes, which are

modelled for: e.g. internal communication, coordination, resources management, interaction

with citizens, command and control, communication with other entities, interoperability

model, service performance (outsourced, in house) or financing;

event, “something that takes place which an agency should respond to (as defined by the

agency's objectives), for example, a natural disaster or a fire in a chemical factory. In

practice, a major event may be decomposed into sub-events, and require the response of

multiple agencies.” [3], [4]

The abovementioned concepts will be defined, examined and compared to other sources for

concepts.



www.episecc.eu

4. Software for taxonomy management

Development of the EPISECC Taxonomy needs software for taxonomy management. This chapter

gives an overview of the software specialised for taxonomy management and continues with a

selection of software for the EPISECC Taxonomy. Software requirements are identified and

superimposed over software functions. The software requirements comprise the development of the

EPISECC Taxonomy, but also development of the EPISECC Ontology model (the task which follows the

EPISECC Taxonomy development). The EPISECC Ontology model will describe the EPISECC use case as

a model of domain knowledge including inference and logic rules and it will serve design and

validation of the Common Information Space. The Protégé software, its desktop and web version,

best fulfils all the identified requirements. Forthcoming sections describe Protégé software

characteristics in detail.

4.1. An overview of the software specialised for taxonomy management

There are many different types of software for taxonomy management. An overview is given in [2].

The two major principles of how software for taxonomies are conceptualised are as follows:

software that performs automatic generation of taxonomy from databases or documents

equipped with tools for text analysis, text analytics and text mining (such as automatic

metadata tagging and content management);

software for presentation or materialisation of the taxonomy that is developed by putting

together different concepts into relation (equipped with tools for taxonomy visualisation and

editing).

Some examples of software having focus on automatic metadata and content management but also

having tools for taxonomy editing are SmartLogic, TopBraidComposer and Synaptica. The focus only

on taxonomy editing and visualisation has software such as MultiTes and Protégé. MS Excel can be

used for taxonomy editing too by adapting taxonomy structure to the two dimensional tables.

Regarding the software completeness of vision (its ability to perform the most advanced modelling

and automatic taxonomy management) and ability to execute (its ability to work with large and

complex taxonomies), an overview of the software is given in [2].

Figure 5: An overview of the software for taxonomy management, adapted from [2]



www.episecc.eu

4.2. Selection process for the software

An approach for selection of taxonomy management software is given in [18]. A first step includes

identification of the software requirements and a second step includes superimposition of the

requirements over software functions.

Following that approach, the selection process started with a definition of the EPISECC requirements

for the software for taxonomy management. As the EPISECC Taxonomy is a backbone for

development of the EPISECC Ontology model, the requirements are extended to fulfil the Ontology

model management too. The first question was: What does the software need to manage? The

EPISECC project includes a taxonomy, multilingual support and ontology model, and thus the

software should support the highest level of semantic complexity (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Semantic complexity, adapted from [18]

The detailed EPISECC requirements on the software for taxonomy and ontology model management

are given in Table 2.

Table 2: EPISECC requirements on the software for taxonomy and ontology model management

Groups of the requirements Supporting functions

Taxonomy building facets

polyhierarchy

thesaurus with broader/narrower relationship types

synonyms

attributes

Taxonomy editing

creating, renaming, merging and deleting concepts

promoting and demoting concepts within hierarchies

mapping concepts

managing relationships and attributes

Import/export functionality to and from lists, spreadsheets, XML and other formats



www.episecc.eu

Groups of the requirements Supporting functions

support of the taxonomy standards like SKOS or ZTHES

Workflow

collaborative work (enabling several users to work together

having roles of editors, viewers or commentators)

taxonomy versions (clear indication of taxonomy version)

change notifications

indicators of when a term has been draft or approved/published

archiving

user friendly GUI

Advanced capabilities search engine

multi-lingual support

graphical presentations of taxonomy

Ontology model support

creation and editing of concepts/classes, relations, instances,

attributes, axioms

support of the RDF, RDFS, OWL

support of the RIF

reasoning algorithms

Other considerations preferable open-source tool with large user community

customizable

The second step in the selection process was to find software fitting the above requirements. The

second question was: What software fulfils the EPISECC requirements? MultiTes, SmartLogic,

Synaptica, TopBraid Composer and Protégé are preselected for further selection because they fulfil

the overall requirements having functions for taxonomy and ontology model management. MS Excel

is omitted from the further selection process as it does not have any function for ontology model

management.

Detailed software evaluation has shown the following. All the preselected software fulfils the first

four requirements groups. MultiTes is robust and user friendly software covering the standard

taxonomy development functions, but it cannot create taxonomy graph nor does it offer support for

ontology modelling. SmartLogic, Synaptica and TopBraid Composer include functions supporting

ontology modelling, but they are limited to SKOS or ZTHES models and do not support the creation of



www.episecc.eu

custom relations, reasoning etc. Thus, their ontology modelling is limited. Protégé is the only

software fully supporting ontology modelling, and it is open source and customizable. An overview of

fulfilment of requirements by the preselected software tools is given in Table 3.

Table 3: Overview of fulfilment of requirements by the preselected software tools

Requirements group MultiTes SmartLogic Synaptica TopBraid Composer

Protégé

Building taxonomy

Editing taxonomy

Import/export functionality

Workflow

Advanced capabilities

Ontology model support

Other considerations

The proposed software Protégé is accepted by all the EPISECC project partners. It will be used for

development of Ontology model for the EPISECC use case. As the Protégé software is open source,

this will facilitate future users of Common Information Space and all interested parties to view and

upgrade the EPISECC Taxonomy and the Ontology model. It will be used for development of the

ontology model for the EPISECC use case.

4.3. Description of the selected software Protégé

Protégé is a free, open-source ontology editor. It provides a suite of tools to construct domain

models and knowledge-based applications with ontologies. It is used by a wide community of

academic, government, and corporate users, who use Protégé to build knowledge-based solutions in

areas as diverse as biomedicine, e-commerce, and organizational modelling [32]. Protégé was

developed by the Stanford Centre for Biomedical Informatics Research at the Stanford University

School of Medicine (supported by grant GM10331601 from the National Institute of General Medical

Sciences of the United States National Institutes of Health). Protégé is based on Java, it fully supports

the OWL 2 and RDF specifications from the World Wide Web Consortium.

For the EPISECC project, the both Protégé products were used: WebProtégé and Protégé Desktop.



www.episecc.eu

4.3.1. WebProtégé

WebProtégé is a collaborative ontology development environment for the Web. It provides the

following features [34]:

support for editing Ontology Web Language (OWL) 2 ontologies;

a default simple editing interface, which provides access to commonly used OWL constructs;

full change tracking and revision history;

collaboration tools such as, sharing and permissions, threaded notes and discussions,

watches and email notifications;

customizable user interface;

customizable Web forms for application/domain specific editing;

multiple formats for upload and download of ontologies (supported formats: RDF/XML,

Turtle, OWL/XML, OBO, and others).

WebProtégé was downloaded and installed on the HITEC company server and is being used for

development and validation of the EPISECC Taxonomy. The revision history tool proved to be very

useful, as well as collaboration tools such as threaded notes and discussions. Figure 7 shows a

screenshot of the EPISECC Taxonomy in WebProtégé software.

Figure 7: A screenshot of the EPISECC taxonomy in WebProtégé

4.3.2. Protégé Desktop

Protégé Desktop is an ontology editing environment with full support for the OWL 2 and description

logic reasoners. It has a customizable user interface, visualization tools for interactive navigation of

ontology relationships, advanced support aids in tracking down inconsistencies, Refactor operations

(ontology merging, moving axioms between ontologies, rename of multiple entities), and more. It

provides the following features [33]:



www.episecc.eu

W3C standards compliant,

customizable user interface,

visualization support,

ontology refactoring support,

direct interface to reasoners,

highly pluggable architecture,

cross compatible with WebProtégé.

Protégé Desktop with its advanced functions and plug-ins was used for the EPISECC Taxonomy export

and import, graph visualization, search etc. It will be used for development of the EPISECC Ontology

model. Figure 8 shows a screenshot of the EPISECC Taxonomy in Protégé Desktop.

Figure 8: A screenshot of the EPISECC taxonomy in Protégé Desktop

4.4. The EPISECC Taxonomy in OWL model

Protégé software utilises the OWL 2 model. To manage the EPISECC Taxonomy by Protégé software,

the taxonomy model has to be represented by the OWL 2 model. Table 4 shows OWL entities used

for representation of the taxonomy concepts, facets, their names and descriptions, and the

taxonomy hierarchy structure (IS-A relationships).

Usage of the OWL Class as the taxonomy Concept, and usage of the OWL property subClassOf as the

taxonomy IS-A relationship, fully matches the hierarchy structure of the taxonomy. For the taxonomy

including facets, as the EPISECC Taxonomy does, the OWL model does not contain entities which can

properly represent the facets and the structure with combination of hierarchies and facets. That can



www.episecc.eu

be represented by introducing upper ontology models such as SKOS, but then we assume the use of

certain ontology models for the taxonomy utilisation. In order to keep the EPISECC taxonomy on the

conceptual level without pre-assuming any implementation models, the OWL Class is used to

represent taxonomy facet and facets are included into hierarchy by OWL property subClassOf. These

should not be considered as any ontological modelling, but rather accommodating taxonomy writing

to the Protégé software.

Table 4: Taxonomy entities represented by OWL model entities

Taxonomy entity OWL entity

Concept rdfs:Class

Concept name (term) rdfs:label

Concept description rdfs:comment

IS-A relationship rdfs:subClassOf

Facet rdfs:Class

Facet name (term) rdfs:label

Facet description rdfs:comment



www.episecc.eu

5. Taxonomy model

This chapter describes the pathways and procedures of EPISECC Taxonomy development. The

procedure consists of both tangible and intangible components. Intangibles are discussions, creations

and constant comparisons of concepts found in various documents. The tangible outcome is a model

implemented in Protégé (Chapter 4), which consists of:

taxonomy structure (hierarchy and facets),

terms for concepts,

description of concepts.

Forthcoming sections explain an approach of how the Taxonomy is created. This is the first version of

the Taxonomy and the final version will be delivered in Task 4.5, namely during the proof of concept

phase. Therefore, the work in WP6 will show the direction it should be developed either in more

depth or with new concepts at higher levels.

5.1. Universe of discourse

The universe of discourse is the main concept of the Taxonomy. It has to be defined clearly and

neatly so the further work on taxonomy construction may be flawless without uncertainties and

ambiguities. The decision has been made in early phase of WP4, during the Task 4.1 in order to have

clear picture of the modelling perspective. As already stated in the section 3.1, a universe of

discourse for EPISECC Taxonomy is “a response to a critical event”. The idea is to keep the focus on

the response to a disaster, as defined at the beginning of the project. However, the period that links

response phase with pre and after response cannot be disregarded. Therefore, the definition of the

universe of discourse is the following: A response to a critical event is a complex dynamic system

composed of actions taken in a certain spatial, technical, organisational, and legal environment

during a disaster, including one or more situations which straightforwardly lead to a disaster, as well

as handing over to a recovery phase.

5.2. Model structure

The modelling starts with finding the main facets which describe the “a response to a critical event”.

It is concluded that there are three crucial perspectives from which the universe of discourse could

be perceived:

what kind of the event is happening,

who is dealing with the consequences, and

what means are available to respond to the situation.

Consequently, three main facets are created:

disaster,

organisation,

capacity,



www.episecc.eu

with following descriptions:

Disaster means any situation which has or may have a severe impact on people, the

environment, or property, including cultural heritage. (DECISION No 1313/2013/EU OF THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil

Protection Mechanism) [5]

An organisation is a unit established to meet goals related to disaster management. It is

structured along its management, which defines the relationships between responsibilities,

tasks and its structure.

Capacity is a combination of both tangible and intangible means available within an

organization that can be used in a response to a critical event.

The current version of the Taxonomy has 45 facets and 315 concepts. More compound concepts may

be generated. Since the EPISECC Taxonomy is not going to be searched automatically and the end

users will perform the mapping through the controlled retrieval of the matching concepts, an

extraction of valid compound terms are not performed. Moreover, for example, a compound term

(Earthmoving machinery, Water) derived from facets Equipment type and Application could be

questionable since the interpretation of the concept would be that there exists a bulldozer which can

be deployed in the water. Nonetheless, amphibian remotely controlled bulldozer can work in shallow

waters. Therefore, it is not always clear and the validation of compound terms/concepts is left to

users.

In order to make the Taxonomy as flexible as possible the facets values may be null, meaning that

they are either not applicable to or not essential for real objects during the classification. If someone

wants to classify a resource it is not necessary to go through facets Disaster and Organisation. The

semantic web principles and dynamic search (using indexing and tagging), if applied in CIS, will allow

extremely comfortable usage of the Taxonomy.

The full, detailed structure of the Taxonomy and descriptions of facets and concepts are given in the

Annex.

5.3. Concepts and terms

The ideas for the concepts are taken mainly from the documents derived from the Inventory analysis

and are listed in the Chapter 2. The documents used by humanitarian organisations are mostly

related to the concepts which consider relief and preparation phases of the disaster management

rather than immediate response phase. However, some ideas and humanitarian aspects are used,

like social assistance to the affected people until adequate care is available and description of the

disasters. From the technical point of view TSO / CWA 15931-Part 2 (Codes for the message

structure) [4], followed by ISO/TR 22351, Societal security — Emergency management — Message

structure for exchange of information [16] provides more concepts mainly related to the resources

and processes (missions). EMSI structure is dedicated to all emergency events and relatively narrow

but has deep hierarchic structure for some concepts, particularly for resources. Therefore, it was



www.episecc.eu

included up to a certain level, which was also discussed and accepted by the project’s Advisory

Board.

CAP (Common Alerting Protocol), as the most mentioned standard in the Inventory according to

Deliverable 4.1 analysis, is mostly dedicated to the syntax and has poor semantics. It provides a

general format for exchanging all-hazard emergency alerts and public warnings, so it was not the

valuable source of concepts.

Concepts related to time, space and metric systems are not included in the Taxonomy since they are

generic and are not exclusively related to “a response to a critical event”. The semantics for the

ontology model, which will be based on the Taxonomy, will be taken from upper ontologies.

The most challenging task is the interpretation, which is given by concepts’ descriptions. The

descriptions of the concepts are defined as general as possible so they may fit into different concepts

of various taxonomy users. Most of the descriptions consist of the only one sentence describing

merely the specialised characteristics not repeating the parent concept’s features. The examples are

also excluded from the descriptions, because they may limit the perception of a concept during the

classification process. Even though the concepts as ideas are withdrawn from various standards,

guidelines and documents, the most consulted sources during the conceptualisation of the concepts’

descriptions are:

Oxford Dictionaries [31],

ISO 22300:2012(E), Societal security — Terminology [14],

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for types of disasters

[29].

The Taxonomy terms are given in English as the most commonly used language. As the term is only a

label of the concepts, there can be more terms, either in English or in different languages, for the

same concept. For the time being the Taxonomy has only one term. The actual terms have been

chosen as the common words used in the different documents which were consulted.

As an example, there is the label “Process” for a concept: A set of actions aiming for a certain result,

executed by an organisation during a response to a critical event. As elaborated in Deliverable 4.1

there are two more terms or labels that are often used for such concepts: mission and measure.

Mission is defined as an activity aimed at reducing the impact of the event and it has a goal and a

plan. In Deliverable 4.1 the concept with the label measure is described as a composition of all

activities necessary to realise the goal of the initiator. Apparently, this is the same concept with

different labels. Those labels could be used as synonyms.

5.4. Model consistency

Model consistency is tested against the chosen principles described in the Chapter 2. Some principles

are overlapping but in order to examine all aspects the Taxonomy’s structure Table 5 provides a

comparison of the Taxonomy with the principles and explanations whether and how they are

considered. Even though the EPISECC Taxonomy is functional, not general, the exhaustiveness of the



www.episecc.eu

concepts within the facet hierarchies is quite hard to determine. Taxonomy structure is not even as

regards three main facets, i.e. they have not equal amount of sub structure-levels. The facet

“Capacity” contains the most of the concepts that need more specifications than those within

“Disaster” and “Organisation”. The reason is that the facet “Capacity” contains resources, which are

the most developed and then most used concepts in end users’ practice. This should not be a

problem, because the navigation through the Taxonomy may go within only one facet, since the null

values for others are allowed.

Table 5: Principles and EPISECC Taxonomy

Principles EPISECC Taxonomy

Principle of differentiation, which recommends

that hierarchy either sole or within a facet should

clearly distinguish its sub-concepts.

The care has been taken to ensure that concepts

do not overlap. However, there is no

straightforward method to prove this, and this

principle will be examined during the proof of

concept.

Principle of relevance, which advises that facets

should describe the universe of discourse.

The relevance has to be validated during the

proof of concept. There are some concepts that

seem to be less relevant than the others. For

example, since it has not been developed

further, a concept “Financial” as a resource type

could be questionable. Likewise, the concept

“Competences” has only one hierarchical level,

so it will be questioned either for existence or for

further development in the proof of concept

phase.

Principle of permanence, which recommends

that facets should describe permanent features

of the described concept, meaning that there are

no null values or unclassified situations for a

facet.

As stated earlier in the section 5.2, null values

are allowed because it makes classification

easier. However, the null values, which are

results of non-applicability for a certain concept,

are avoided as much as possible, but the real

world concepts could be classified with null

values for facets. At the moment, it is not

possible to foresee all objects (elements of the

set O), so such situations may occur and the

methodology leaves the possibility to use null

values, in such cases as well.

Principle of homogeneity, which ensures that

concepts are consistent representing only one

Like with the principle of differentiation, the care

has been taken and concepts do have clear

meaning of only one characteristic of the “a



www.episecc.eu

Principles EPISECC Taxonomy

characteristic of a universe of discourse. response to a critical event”. The principle will be

examined during the proof of concept.

Principle of mutual exclusivity, which demands

that facets are orthogonal.

This principle is not possible to check a priori for

functional classification in the EPISECC

taxonomy, so this will be examined during the

proof of concept and validation. However, there

is a possibility that a certain overlapping of the

facets will help end users during the navigation

or understanding the taxonomy concepts, then

there is not necessity to remove them, as

explained in Chapter 2.

Principle of ascertainability, which requires that

the criterion for a facet has to be ascertainable,

meaning that it has to be applicable to a

particular situation, existence of unknown or not

classifying under a facet.

Null values, which are results of non-applicability

for a certain concept, are avoided as much as

possible. As with the principle of permanence,

null values for the facets are allowed in practice,

because it makes classification faster and

focused only to the classification particular sub-

objects.

Principle of relevant succession, which advises

that the position of either concepts or facets

reflect scopes they have in the universe of

discourse, meaning parent concepts are broader

in their meanings than sub-concepts.

The concepts are structured carefully. However,

there is no straightforward method to prove this,

and this principle will be examined during the

proof of concept in direct contact with end users.

Principle of consistent succession, which

recommends that the order of concepts or facets

should not be modified once it is established,

except there is a change of the universe of

discourse [23].

The validation processes are crucial for checking

whether the concepts are consistent. Therefore,

the Taxonomy will be validated against as much

use cases as possible, particularly during the

proof of concept.

The multiple inheritance issues are mainly solved implicitly by compound terms from two or even

more sub-taxonomies coming from different facets. In order to make the structure simple with as

less fragmentation as possible, compound terms have been avoided in the cases with simple facet’s

concepts. The example is a facet Application where there are the values: air, water, land, air-water,

air-land, land-water, air-water-land. The concept “Land-air” does not have any additional conceptual

meaning than Land and Air, so it is not a problem if the concepts appear at the same level. Another

solution is to define land, air and water as facets and make compound terms from their values, but



www.episecc.eu

such faceting makes no sense in this structure because facets have only one value, for example, facet

Air has only the value “air”. The consistency will be further validated during the proof of concept

phase and the Taxonomy structure will be adopted if needed.



www.episecc.eu

6. Validation

This chapter presents results and considerations coming from the validation of the first EPISECC

taxonomy concept. This is a preliminary internal validation, which may indicate the potential weak

points of the Taxonomy. The external validation which will include end users and project’s Advisory

Board members is planned within WP6, during the proof of concept phase. However the suggestions

from this preliminary validation phase will be taken into account in the Task 4.5, as well.

6.1. Concepts and methodology

The validation process is based on the emergency management episodes, and related use cases,

outlined in deliverable D4.1. The analysis against the so called “Taxonomy Use Cases” follow a very

simple, yet practical and effective approach: involved information items have to be covered by the

EPISECC taxonomy, in order to allow common understanding of the situation during response

management. The analysis is presented using a tabular structure, where the following elements are

considered:

steps, normally matching specific use cases within the episode itself;

information content, the type of information being exchanged during each step;

EPISECC Taxonomy mapping, for reporting whether the current version of the EPISECC

taxonomy is including a specific information type or not;

missing concepts / remarks, just for reporting notes or identified gaps and needs of

improvements, i.e. when a specific concept is not covered by the current version of the

taxonomy.

6.2. Results of validation

The results of the validation are given in the Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 in the following subsections.

The EPISECC concepts, under which the objects from the message in the column “Information

content” are classified, are presented by a sequence of concepts and facets delimited by slash as a

direct mapping from the Protégé structure. Even though it is not an appropriate presentation of

mutual relations between facets and hierarchical concepts, it is practical for the presentation in the

tables. Facets are marked in italics and three dots represents parts of a sequence that precedes or

follows ( … / Concept term / Facet term / …) .



www.episecc.eu

6.2.1. Episode 1 - Earthquake scenario

Table 6: Aftershock causing the partial collapse of the road and rail infrastructures

Steps (linked to specific use cases)

Information content EPISECC Taxonomy mapping

Missing concepts / remarks

Early Warnings

What kind of disaster / event?

Earthquake aftershock.

Compound term:

Disaster / Disaster type / Earthquake

and

Disaster / Cause / Natural

and

Disaster/ Complexity/ Cascading

When did it happen?

Date & time information.

Not applicable. The consortium agreed that specific date & time mapping is not needed as part of the EPISECC taxonomy, since they are generic concepts not exclusively dedicated to “a response to a critical event”.

Where did it happen?

Epicentre (geographic point).

Affected areas (e.g. geographic polygons).

Not applicable. The consortium agreed that specific location information mapping is not needed as part of the EPISECC taxonomy, since they are generic concepts not exclusively dedicated to “a response to a critical event”.

What were the characteristics / scale of the event?

Magnitude.

Not applicable. Particular scales of concrete disasters are defined internationally as it is space, metric system and time, and other scaling systems, so they will not be included in the EPISECC Taxonomy.

Situation assessment / Situation map


Affected areas update

Not applicable. The consortium agreed that specific location information mapping is not needed as part of the EPISECC taxonomy, since they are generic concepts not exclusively dedicated to “a response to a critical event”



www.episecc.eu




Number and type of casualties and damages?

Affected people (injured, displaced, etc.)

Estimated damages in relevant infrastructures and buildings.

Disaster / Impacts / …

… / Data set / Data set content / Casualties / …

… / Data set / Data set content / Damage data

Mitigation actions and needs?

Type of resources needed.

Type of actions (tasks) to be performed.

… / Resource / Resource type / …

Capacity / Capacity Type / Competences / …

… / Resource / Resource type / Institutional / Process / Process type / …

Mission types (Tasks / Actions) and their status (progress) are covered by the concept “Process” in the EPISECC taxonomy, meaning that each action / task can be considered a process, or a part of it.

Situation warnings related to infrastructures

Critical infrastructures situation?

Specific events as consequences of the main event (e.g. train derailment due to railway break).


Compound term:

… / Resource status / Unavailable / destroyed

and

… / Resource type / Transportation infrastructure

Situation reports

What are, and what is the general status of all incidents handled after a while, with the response phase started?

Incidents types, description and status.

Compound term:

Disaster / Disaster Type / …

and

Disaster / Disaster Progress / …



www.episecc.eu




What are, and what is the general status of all employed resources after a while, with the response phase started?

Involved resources types, status and description.

… / Resource / Resource Type / …

… / Resource / Resource Status / …

What are, and what is the general status of all activities after a while, with the response phase started?

Involved activities with status, progresses and description.

Capacity / Capacity Type / Resource / Resource type / Institutional / Process / Process type / …


Request of further help through the European Civil Protection Mechanism

What is the actual situation?

ongoing emergency details (country, organisations, location, evacuation radius, sheltering radius, etc.);

ongoing emergency assessment (victims, infrastructures and basic services affected);

weather conditions and forecast;

resources/means on scene and type of assistance needed.




… / Resource / Resource type / Institutional / Data set / …

Response from the participating state/country

What is the offered support?

Type of assistance available, which can be provided (e.g. resource modules with specific capabilities).





www.episecc.eu

6.2.2. Episode 2 - Earthquake scenario

Table 7: Dam break and flooding




Sharing of initial info about the situation


Type (flood) and description (name, water level etc.).

Compound term:

Disaster / Disaster type / Flash flood

and

Disaster / Cause / Technological

and

Disaster / Complexity / Cascading

When did it happen?

Date & time information.

Not applicable. The consortium agreed that specific date & time mapping is not needed as part of the EPISECC taxonomy, since they are generic concepts not exclusively dedicated to “a response to a critical event”.


Dam location, and details about the zones in danger (e.g. polygon).


Assessment of the needed resources / actions

Actions (tasks) needed,

e.g. type of tasks to be performed (evacuation).



Assessment of resources needs to perform the actions.

E.g. type of resources (human resources, equipment to mitigate / try to prevent a break).


… / Resource / Resource Type / …



www.episecc.eu




Updated information after the dam breaks


Compound term:

Disaster / Disaster type / Flash flood

and

Disaster / Cause / Technological

and

Disaster / Complexity / Cascading

Casualties / Impacts

E.g. number of victims, missing people

Disaster / Impacts / … ;

Capacity / Capacity Type / Resource / Resource type / Institutional / Data set / Data set content / Affected people data / Casualties / …

Actions (tasks) needed

Type and description of tasks to be performed (rescue of people, continue support to the evacuation)



Assessment of available and needed resources needs to perform the actions

E.g. type of resources (human resources, equipment to mitigate / try to prevent a break)


… / Resource / Resource Type /…



www.episecc.eu

6.2.3. Episode 3 - Wildfire

Table 8: Collaboration between local (Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and foreign teams (Italian fire Brigades) for

fire control and people evacuation activities




Call for help requiring specific resources, from Bosnia and Herzegovina’s side to Croatia, based on bilateral agreements

Location of the fire front?

Location information.


What kind of resources are needed?

Type of resources required (planes and helicopters), description and number.

Capacity / Capacity Type / Resource / Resource type / Physical / Equipment / Equipment type / Machinery / Fire-Fighting / … / Helicopter

or

… / Fire-Fighting / … / Canadair

Situation assessment from the field (first responders)

Location and extension of the fire?

Affected areas update.


What are, and what is the general status of all employed resources?

Involved resources types, status and description (helicopters, humans, etc.)

Capacity / Capacity Type / Resource Status / …



www.episecc.eu




What are, and what is the general status of all activities?

Involved activities with status, progresses and description.


… / Process / Process status / …


Information needed for the Police and Fire Brigades, to evacuate the area

Location of areas to be evacuated and involved people?

Geographic location of villages and towns; number of inhabitants.

Capacity / Capacity Type / Resource / Resource type / Institutional / Data set / Data set content / Census data

The consortium agreed that specific location information mapping is not needed as part of the EPISECC taxonomy, since they are generic concepts not exclusively dedicated to “a response to a critical event”.

Evacuation spots and capacities?

Available / unavailable paths?

E.g. assembly areas, blocked roads.

A compound term:

Capacity / Capacity Type / Resource / Resource type / … / Transportation infrastructure

and

... / Resource / Resource status / Available

or

... / Resource / Resource status / Unavailable / …

Call for more help (to Fire Brigades) due to the intensification of the fire

What kind of additional resources are needed?

E.g. list of the equipment (amount and specifications) and first responders needed; specification of the food for first responders.

Capacity / Capacity types / Competences / … and more concrete Capacity / Capacity types / Resource / Resource type / …



www.episecc.eu




What is the location of the Fire?

Detailed specification of the particular location where fire intensifies.


6.2.4. Summary of the validation

The results of the validation of the first version of the EPISECC Taxonomy against the episodes and

use cases developed and presented in deliverable D4.1 show that the main concepts related to the

information exchanged during emergency management are included. However, there are some

aspects which should be taken into account during the further revision of the Taxonomy in the Task

4.5 and discussion with end users in WP6. They are the following:

consequences of major disaster (e.g. building collapse, dam break) may actually be

represented both in the list of impacts, and as specific event types, deserving attention and

requiring specific handling with dedicated resources and activities. This would also mean

that, as a consequence of the verification of the final end users’ opinion, the final version of

the EPISECC taxonomy could possibly include as much event types as possible: to cover the

description of the different sub-events happening as consequences of a bigger one. Since,

the inclusion of such partitioned event types may lead to some structural issues like multiple

inheritance and non-exhaustiveness problem, the need for such concepts should be carefully

discussed with end users during the proof of concept phase;

resources are described at high level, with facets which could be used for creation of

compound terms. Even though project’s Advisory Board agreed with such approach the

consortium will consider, in collaboration with end users during the proof of concept phase,

the possibility to extend the type of resources and resources groups to be covered, taking

inspiration, for example, from the EMSI [16].

competences may require extensions, as indicated in section 5.4, Table 5.

Other elements whose approach will be discussed with the end users during the proof of concept

phase for a possible, final consolidation, are related to the mission types (tasks / actions), which are

covered by the concept “Process” in the EPISECC Taxonomy (section 3.1), meaning that, in most of

the cases, missions carried out by first responders (like rescue activities), can be considered a

process, or a part of them. The possible extension of the mission types will be also considered taking

into account the end users’ suggestions and taking again inspiration from existing documents, like

the EMSI [16].



www.episecc.eu

However, the need for further extension of the Taxonomy by adding more concepts will be carefully

examined within WP6 with end users and results will be included in the work of Task 4.5. The

requirement for more complex relationships between concepts that cannot be covered by Taxonomy

structure, but are vital for the development of the Common Information Space will be analysed and

included in the EPISECC Database (Task 4.3).



www.episecc.eu

7. Conclusion

The deliverable brings the methodology and the structure of the EPISECC Taxonomy. The

methodology is firstly focused on the sources of the information needed for the definition of the

concepts and facets. The three main sources are described: EPISECC Inventory, Common Information

Space, and concepts defined during the conceptualisation of the project. Regarding the Inventory,

the analysis of potential concepts has been a continuous process during the whole period of

interviews and later by analysing the relevant documents from the Inventory. Even the EPISECC

Questionnaire structure and content have been used to get first indications on how to conceptualise

the taxonomy structure. This deliverable outlines the main findings from this process and continues

with the structuring of the Taxonomy.

Since the architecture of the Common Information Space envisages the usage of the EMSI [16]

concepts for message structuring, these concepts are also taken into account. EMSI structure is

relatively narrow and goes deep into some concepts (like resources), therefore it was included up to

a certain level, which was also discussed and accepted by the project’s Advisory Board.

There were some challenges to keep the Taxonomy structure balanced, meaning that main concepts

or facets preferably have equal numbers of sub structure-levels. This was not possible, because the

facet “Capacity” contains the most of the concepts that need more specifications than those within

“Disaster” and “Organisation”. Nevertheless, if implemented in CIS, using indexing or similar

techniques for the management of the Taxonomy the problem could be overcome. This will be

further validated in the WP6 and, if necessary, improved in Task 4.5.

The Taxonomy is preliminarily validated against the episodes and their use cases described in

Deliverable 4.1. The external validation will be within the proof of concept phase in WP6. It is

expected that the Taxonomy will be updated with more concepts, or some concepts may be changed

or even dropped from the structure. The final version of the Taxonomy will be delivered within the

Task 4.5. The validation described in Chapter 6 will be basis for the external validation. Any potential

weaknesses will be discussed with end users and final conclusions will be made accordingly.

Therefore, following the conclusions from the Deliverable 4.1 the episodes will also be updated and

more use cases are expected to be described. This will be done in close collaboration with the

project’s Advisory Board and in the process of conceptualisation of proof of concept by further

analysis of processes, measures and interoperability patterns identified in the Task 4.1 and outlined

in Deliverable 4.1.

As defined by the project the Taxonomy deals with disasters, but as recommendations for the follow-

up beyond the project lifetime, everyday operations’ domains used by first responders could be

considered since they overlap in many aspects with the defined concepts.



www.episecc.eu

Bibliography

[1] R. Below, A. Wirtz, D. GUHA-SAPIR, Disaster Category Classification and peril Terminology for

Operational Purpose (Working paper), Université catholique de Louvain, 2009

[2] J. A. Bush and Z. R. Wahl, Taxonomy Tools Requirements and Capabilities, in Taxonomy Boot

Camp, Washington, 2011

[3] CWA 15931-1:2009 (E), Disaster and emergency management - Shared situation awareness -

Part 1: Message structure

[4] CWA 15931-2:2009 (E), Disaster and emergency management - Shared situationawareness -

Part 2: Codes for the message structure

[5] DECISION No 1313/2013/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17

December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism

[6] Dynamic Taxonomies and Faceted Search, Theory, Practice, and Experience. Editors: G.M.

Sacco, Y. Tzitzikas, Springer-Verlag, 2009

[7] M.D. Giess, P.J. Wild, C.A. McMahon, The generation of faceted classification schemes for

use in the organisation of engineering design documents. International Journal of

Information Management, 28, 379–390, 2008

[8] Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System (GDACS) Guidelines, EC, OCHA, UNOSAT, 2014

[9] H. Hedden, The Accidental Taxonomist. Information Today Inc., 2010

[10] Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, The Sphere

Project, 2011

[11] Introduction to the guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation of international

disaster relief and initial recovery assistance, International Red Cross Society and Red

Crescent Society, 2008

[12] INSPIRE DIRECTIVE 2007/2/EC, 2007

[13] International Search and Rescue Advisory Group Guidelines and Methodology, UNITED

NATIONS OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS, 2012

[14] ISO 22300:2012(E), Societal security — Terminology

[15] ISO 22320:2011(E), Societal security — Emergency management — Requirements for

incident response

[16] ISO/TR 22351, Societal security — Emergency management — Message structure for

exchange of information.

[17] OASIS Standard CAP-V1.2, July, 2010

[18] W. Pohs, Selecting a Taxonomy Management Tool, in SLA 2012 Annual Conference and INFO EXPO, Chicago, 2012

[19] S. R. Ranganathan, The Colon Classification. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1965



www.episecc.eu

[20] S. R. Ranganathan, Prolegomena to Library Classification, Summary of normative principles,

1967

[21] A. Scheer, ARIS - Vom Geschäftsprozess zum Anwendungssystem. Berlin: Springer, 2002

[22] L. Spiteri, Design of an instrument to measure the structural quality of faceted thesauri.

Toronto, thesis, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto, 1996

[23] L. Spiteri, A simplified model for facet analysis. Canadian Journal of Information and Library

Science, 23,1–30, 1998

[24] L. Spiteri, Incorporating Facets into Social Tagging Applications: An Analysis of Current

Trends. Cataloging& Classification Quarterly, 48(1), 94-109, 2010

[25] Y. Tzitzikas, A, Analyti, N. Spyratos, P. Constantopoulos, An algebra for specifying valid

compound terms in faceted taxonomies, Data Knowledge and Engineering, Vol. 62, pp. 1-40,

2007

[26] UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2009

[27] http://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/DefEN/Pages/default.aspx (last accessed 8 June 2015)

[28] http://disaster-fp7.eu (last accessed 10 January 2016)

[29] http://www.ifrc.org (last accessed 1 December 2015)

[30] https://onki.fi/en/browser/overview/disaster (last accessed 10 January 2016)

[31] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com (last accessed 20 December 2015)

[32] http://protege.stanford.edu/ (last accessed 14 December 2015)

[33] http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Protege4Features (last accessed 14 December 2015)

[34] http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/WebProtege (last accessed 14 December 2015)


http://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/DefEN/Pages/default.aspx

http://disaster-fp7.eu/

http://www.ifrc.org/

https://onki.fi/en/browser/overview/disaster

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

http://protege.stanford.edu/

http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Protege4Features

http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/WebProtege


www.episecc.eu

Annex

The structure is presented by a concept/facet and its immediate sub-structure. The concepts/facets

are connected via hyperlinks. The structure begins with universe of discourse and follows by its three

main facets up to the end nodes of the structure, subsequently.

A response to a critical event: A complex dynamic system composed of actions taken in a certain

spatial, technical, organisational, and legal environment during a disaster, including one or more

situations which straightforwardly lead to a disaster, as well as handing over to a recovery phase.

Sub-structure:

Capacity (facet): A combination of both tangible and intangible means available within an


Disaster (facet): “Disaster means any situation which has or may have a severe impact on people, the

environment, or property, including cultural heritage.” (DECISION No 1313/2013/EU OF THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection

Mechanism) [5]

Organisation (facet): An organisation is a unit established to meet goals related to disaster

management. It is structured along its management, which defines the relationships between

responsibilities, tasks and its structure.

Capacity (facet): A combination of both tangible and intangible means available within an


Sub-structure:

Capability (facet): Ability to response to a disaster in relation to capacity.

Capacity type (facet): A category of a capacity having common characteristics related to mean’s

characteristics.



www.episecc.eu

Capability (facet): Ability to response to a disaster in relation to capacity.

Sub-structure:

Capable: Ability to response to a disaster in relation to capacity.

Incapable: An organization has not capability to respond to a disaster.

Partially capable: An organization has partial capability to respond to a disaster.

Capacity type (facet): A combination of both tangible and intangible means available within an


Sub-structure:

Competence: The ability, in terms of having adequate skills and knowledge, to efficiently cope with a

situation caused by a critical event.

Resource: Assets an organisation has available for the response to a critical event.

Competence: The ability, in terms of having adequate skills and knowledge, to efficiently cope with a

situation caused by a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Coordination: An ability to manage a situation in which different organisations or parts of the same

organisation work or act together in order to achieve a common objective.

Emergency medical service: An ability to treat and transport people that may be life threatening or

injured during a response to a critical event.

Evacuation: An ability to immediately and urgently move people away from the threat or actual

occurrence of a hazard.

Firefighting: An ability to perform an action or process of extinguishing fires.

Humanitarian aid: An ability to provide material or logistical assistance for humanitarian purposes.

Protection of property: An ability to assess the damage and protect structures and objects as an

action of a response to a critical event.

Protection of cultural heritage: An ability to assess the damage and protect cultural heritage as a

action of a response to a critical event.



www.episecc.eu

Protection of critical infrastructure: An ability to assess the damage and protect critical

infrastructure as an action of a response to a critical event

Search and rescue: An ability to perform search for and aid to people who are in distress or

imminent

Resource: Assets an organisation has available for the response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Resource status (facet): The status of the resource regarding its availability for deployment.

Resource type (facet): A category of a resource having common characteristics.

Resource status (facet): The status of the resource regarding its availability for deployment.

Sub-structure:

Available: A resource is available for deployment.

Unavailable: A resource is not available for deployment.

Unavailable: A resource is not available for deployment.

Sub-structure:

Destroyed: The resource is destroyed.

In use: A resource is in use and will become available when finishes the task.

Maintenance: A resource is under maintenance.

Reserved: A resource is reserved.

Virtual: The resource is virtual.

In use: A resource is in use and will become available when finishes the task.

Sub-structure:

Mobile: A resource is in move.

On scene: A resource is deployed on a disaster scene.



www.episecc.eu

Resource type (facet): A category of a resource having common characteristics.

Sub-structure:

Animal: An animal used by first responders during a response to a critical event.

Financial: Finances and related assets an organisation has available for the response to a critical

event.

Human: Workforce an organisation has available for the response to a critical event.

Institutional: Organisational and managerial assets an organisation developed for the response to a

critical event.

Physical: A tangible assets an organisation has available for the response to a critical event.

Animal: An animal used by first responders during a response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Dog: A dog used by first responders during a response to a critical event.

Horse: A horse used for crowd control.

Dog: A dog used by first responders during a response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Cadaver: A dog trained to locate lost people or specific substances.

Tracking: A dog trained to locate trapped people.

Human: Workforce an organisation has available for the response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Human resource type (facet): A category of a human resource having common characteristics

related to the service provided.

Provision (facet): A category of a human resource having common characteristics related to the

provision of a service.

Service (facet): A category of a human resource having common characteristics related to the service

type.



www.episecc.eu

Human resource type (facet): A category of a human resource having common characteristics

related to the service provided.

Sub-structure:

Civil protection member: A member of a civil protection force who acts as a first responder.

Firefighter: A first responder whose primary job is to extinguish fires.

Humanitarian organisation member: A member of a humanitarian organisation who provides aid

during the response phase.

Policeman: A member of a police force who acts as a first responder.

Provision (facet): A category of a human resource having common characteristics related to the

provision of a service.

Sub-structure:

Professional: A person who provides first response service as primary occupation.

Volunteer: A person who voluntarily provides first response service.

Service (facet): A category of a human resource having common characteristics related to the service

type.

Sub-structure:

Administrative: A person who supports first responders on the scene of a critical event.

First responder: A person whose job requires being the first on the scene of a critical event.



www.episecc.eu

Institutional: Organisational and managerial assets an organisation developed for the response to a

critical event.

Sub-structure:

Communication: The mode for exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other

medium.

Data set: An identifiable collection of data used by end users during the response to a critical event.

Management tool: A tool which facilitate both adequate preparedness as well as effective response

to disasters within and outside the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

Process: Process is a set of actions aiming for a certain result, executed by an organisation during a

response to a critical event.

Communication: The mode for exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other

medium.

Sub-structure:

Audio and video conference: Two or more locations to communicate by simultaneous two-way video

and audio transmissions.

e-mail: A method of exchanging digital messages from an author to one or more recipients.

e-service: Online service including any processing capability available on the Internet.

Face to face: A face-to-face conversation.

Multimedia messaging: A method of exchanging images and videos between two or more mobile

phones or fixed or portable devices over a communication network.

Social Media: Internet tools that allow people to create, share, or exchange information, images or

video.

Text messaging: A method of exchanging text messages between two or more mobile phones or

fixed or portable devices over a communication network.

Voice messaging: A method of exchanging voice messages between two or more mobile phones or

fixed or portable devices over a communication network.

Wiki: Internet tool that allow people to collaboratively create and edit content of a web site or

database.



www.episecc.eu

Data set: An identifiable collection of data used by end users during the response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Data set content (facet): A category of a data set having common characteristics related to its origin.

Data set format (facet): Organisation of data according to certain specifications.

Data set type (facet): A category of a data set having common characteristics related to a form.

Data set use (facet): The rights or authorisation to use data.

Data set content (facet): A category of a data set having common characteristics related to its origin.

Sub-structure:

Affected people data: Data about people affected by a disaster.

Census data: An official count or survey of a population in affected area.

Cultural heritage data: Data related to the affected cultural heritage.

Damage data: Estimated damages of relevant infrastructures and/or buildings.

Early warning data: Data indicating near threat of hazard of a certain disaster.

Earth observation data: information, derived from space, airborne, land and marine sensors'

networks.

Geographical data: Spatial data related to the affected area.

Geophysical data: Data on solid earth connected to the actual disaster.

Marine data: Data on marine system connected to the actual disaster.

Medical aid data: Data on the availability of hospital resources.

Natural resources data: Data on the natural resources affected by the disaster.

Property data: Data related to the affected property.

Resource data: Data about resources of an organisation engaged in a response to a critical.

Situational report: A recurring report which records and describes a situation related to the critical

event.

Strategic infrastructure data: Data about assets which deserves special attention, priority or has a

critical role during a response to a critical event.

Weather data: State of the weather in a disaster area.



www.episecc.eu

Weather forecast: Data resulting from the analysis of the state of the weather in a disaster area with

an assessment of likely developments.

Affected people data: Data about people affected by a disaster.

Sub-structure:

Casualties: Data about people who are killed or injured during a disaster.

Homeless: The number of individuals reported needing immediate assistance for shelter.

Missing: The number of individuals reported or presumed missing.

Total affected: The total number of affected people.

Casualties: Data about people who are killed or injured during a disaster.

Sub-structure:

Injured with high priority: The number of individuals reported injured with high priority for medical

intervention.

Injured with low priority: The number of individuals reported injured with low priority for medical

intervention.

Killed: The number of individuals reported or presumed killed.

Management tool: A tool which facilitate both adequate preparedness as well as effective response

to disasters within and outside the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

Sub-structure:

Interoperability (facet): The interoperability is the communication between the different

organisation units during a process and includes the used communication medium, the type of data,

the versioned tools, which was used to send and receive the data, and the date.

Level of application (facet): An organisational level the tool is used.

Organisational scope (facet): Scope within a tool is used.

PPDR phase (facet): A period or stage within PPDR.



www.episecc.eu

Interoperability (facet): The interoperability is the communication between the different

organisation units during a process and includes the used communication medium, the type of data,

the versioned tools, which was used to send and receive the data, and the date.

Sub-structure:

Physical interoperability: Physical communication infrastructure used to exchange data with a tool.

Semantic interoperability: Ability to exchange data using semantic structures.

Syntactical interoperability: Ability to exchange data with other PPDR management systems.

Level of application (facet): An organisational level the tool is used.

Sub-structure:

Operation execution: A tool used for activities of the disaster relief units performed directly at the

disaster site.

Operation planning and control: A tool is used for tasks dealing with unit deployment and

replenishment as well as the controlling of the different disaster relief operations running

simultaneously at the basis are situated.

Strategy and support: A tool is used for activities in the course of the disaster relief process are

monitored based on the information obtained from the levels below.

Organisational scope (facet): Scope within a tool is used.

Sub-structure:

Bilateral: Usage by two organisations or entities.

Internal: Usage by one organisation or entity.

Multilateral: Usage by multiple organisations or entities.



www.episecc.eu

PPDR phase (facet): A period or stage within PPDR.

Sub-structure:

Response: A phase of immediate action of first responders in a respond to a critical event.

Response and post-response: A phase of immediate action of first responders in a respond to a

critical event plus recovery phase.

Response and pre-response: A phase of immediate action of first responders in a respond to a

critical event plus preparedness phase.

Response, pre- and post-response: A phase of immediate action of first responders in a respond to a

critical event plus preparedness and recovery phases.

Process: Process is a set of actions aiming for a certain result, executed by an organisation during a


Sub-structure:

Process category (facet): A category of a process having common characteristics related to

specification.

Process priority (facet): A process status related to its importance.

Process status (facet): The position of the process related to its completion.

Process type (facet): A type of a process having common characteristics related to the object of a

communication.

Process category (facet): A category of a process having common characteristics related to

specification.

Sub-structure:

Non-standardised process: There are no written instructions how to perform activities during a


Standard operating procedure: Written instructions intended to document how to perform activities

during a response to a critical event.



www.episecc.eu

Process priority (facet): A process status related to its importance.

Sub-structure:

High priority: The importance of a process is assessed as high.

Low priority: The importance of a process is assessed as low.

Medium priority: The importance of a process is assessed as medium.

Process status (facet): The position of the process related to its completion.

Sub-structure:

Finished: A process is terminated after all its activities have been done.

In progress: A process is in execution.

Planned: A process will be started in the future.

Stopped: A process has been aborted either intentionally or unintentionally without finishing all its

activities.

Process type (facet): A type of a process having common characteristics related to the object of a

communication.

Sub-structure:

Command and control: Distribution of results of a decision-making process.

Interaction with people: Mutual interaction between organisations and affected people.

Interoperability actions: Exchanging information between different organisational units using

communication media and tools.

Physical response: An organised activity to physically cope with the immediate aftermath of a

disaster.

Resources management: Allocating and using resources during a response to a critical event.



www.episecc.eu

Command and control: Distribution of results of a decision-making process.

Sub-structure:

Coordinating: Acting in a way in which different organisations or parts of the same organisation work

or act together.

Protecting disaster area: Controlling external influences to a disaster area.

Setting up a staging area: Organising an area where first responders, vehicles, equipment or material

are assembled.

Traffic regulation and control: Managing the movement of vehicles on or near disaster area.

Interaction with people: Mutual interaction between organisations and affected people.

Sub-structure:

Communication with people: Mutual exchange of critical information between organisations and

people.

Evacuation of people: Movement of people away from the threat or actual occurrence of a hazard.

Providing general help: Social assistance given to the affected people until adequate care is

available.

Providing medical aid: Help given to the injured people until full medical aid is available.

Transporting injured people: Moving injured people from a disaster are to hospitals or adequate

institution.

Evacuation of people: Movement of people away from the threat or actual occurrence of a hazard.

Sub-structure:

Evacuation of immobile persons: A person is incapable of moving on its own.

Evacuation of mobile persons: A person is incapable of moving on its own.



www.episecc.eu

Interoperability actions: Exchanging information between different organisational units using

communication media and tools.

Sub-structure:

Communication with other organisations: A process exchanges information with other

organisations.

Communication with other organisations and internally: A process exchanges information with both

other organisations and internal organisational units.

Internal communication: A process exchanges information within single organisation.

Physical response: An organised activity to physically cope with the immediate aftermath of a

disaster.

Sub-structure:

Decontamination: Cleaning equipment, infrastructure, terrain, humans or area to remove

contaminants including CBRN.

Extinguishing fire: An act undertaken to terminate fire.

Recovery: Act of returning into function or saving affected infrastructure, property, environment and

cultural heritage after a disaster has hit.

Rescue of animals: An act of saving affected animals from danger after a disaster has hit.

Rescue of people: An act of saving affected people from danger after a disaster has hit.

Search for animals: An act of finding affected animals after a disaster has hit.

Search for people: An act of finding affected people after a disaster has hit.



www.episecc.eu

Resources management: Allocating and using resources during a response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Providing resources to a disaster area: Delivering resources and services to a disaster area.

Providing supplies to first responders: Delivering requested supplies and services to first responders

on a disaster area.

Providing supplies to people: Delivering requested supplies and services to people affected by a

disaster.

Physical: A tangible asset an organisation has available for the response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Equipment: Supplies or tools used by an organisation during a response to a critical event.

Infrastructure: Physical and organizational structures, systems and facilities needed for the operation

during the response to a critical event.

Equipment: Supplies or tools used by an organisation during a response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Application (facet): Media where equipment is applied.

Equipment type (facet): A category of equipment used during a disaster having common

characteristics related to its function.

Application (facet): Media where equipment is applied.

Sub-structure:

Air: Equipment is applicable in air.

Air-water: Equipment is applicable on air and water.

Land: Equipment is applicable on land.

Land-air: Equipment is applicable on land and in air.

Land-water: Equipment is applicable on land and water.



www.episecc.eu

Land-water-air: Equipment is applicable on land, water and in air.

Water: Equipment is applicable on water.

Equipment type (facet): A category of equipment used during a disaster having common characteristics related to its function.

Sub-structure:

Auxiliary equipment: Auxiliary supplies or tools used by an organisation during a response to a

critical event.

Communication device: An end node of a technical system an organisation uses for sharing

information with other organisations involved in a response to a critical event.

Machinery: A technical system for coping with disaster effects or intermediate consequences.

Material: A substance used to deal with disaster effects or intermediate consequences.

Transportation: A device used for transporting people, equipment, vehicles and materials to and

from disaster area.

Auxiliary equipment: Auxiliary supplies or tools used by an organisation during a response to a

critical event.

Sub-structure:

Humanitarian equipment: Supplies or tools used by an organisation during a humanitarian disaster.

Technical: A supporting structure providing facility which helps first responders in their operations

during response to a critical event.



www.episecc.eu

Communication device: An end node of a technical system an organisation uses for sharing information with other organisations involved in a response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Computer: An electronic device which receives information (data) in a particular form and of

performing a set of procedural instructions (program) to produce a result in the form of information

or signals.

Fax: A telephonic transmission of scanned material to a telephone number connected to a printer or

other output device.

Landline phone: A phone that uses a metal wire or fibre optic telephone line for transmission.

Mobile phone: Mobile phone is a telephone that can make and receive calls by connecting to carrier

units while the user is moving within a telephone service area.

Mobile radio: A device based on radio frequencies, and where the path of communications is

movable on either end.

Pager system: Simple personal telecommunications device for short messages.

Mobile phone: Mobile phone is a telephone that can make and receive calls by connecting to carrier

units while the user is moving within a telephone service area.

Sub-structure:

Cell phone: A mobile phone that connects to terrestrial cells.

Satellite phone: A mobile phone that connects to orbiting satellites.

Machinery: A technical system for coping with disaster effects or intermediate consequences.

Sub-structure:

Anti-pollution: A machine used to minimise impact of polluters.

Compressor: A mobile air compressor station for maintenance and service operations, and for the

filling of inflatable equipment.

Cutting: A machine used to cut, weaken, shear or break a material.

Demining: A machine used for humanitarian minesweeping and/or mine clearance.

Earthmoving: A machine used for moving large quantities of earth.



www.episecc.eu

Excavating: A machine used for excavating large quantities of earth.

Fire-fighting: A machine used to cope with or extinguish a fire.

Life-sustaining: A machine used to mechanically sustains, restores, or supplants a vital bodily

functions.

Lightning: A machine used to illuminate disaster/emergency area.

Pumping system: Systems designed for pumping pollutant spill, and water excess during natural

disasters.

Respiratory: Equipment which supports/creates normal breathing conditions during a disaster.

Fire-fighting: A machine used to cope with or extinguish a fire.

Sub-structure:

Air-tractor: An aircraft specialised for firefighting mission.

Canadair: An aircraft designed and built specifically for aerial firefighting.

Helicopter: A helicopter which delivers water for aerial firefighting.

Ventilation: Allows the ventilation and cooling of large structures.

Material: A substance used to deal with disaster effects or intermediate consequences.

Sub-structure:

Chemical: Any kind of chemical substance used for neutralisation or decontamination.

Construction materials: Any kind of material used for building auxiliary or repairing existing

structures during a response to a critical event.

Food: Any nutritional substance consumed by either people or first responders during a response to

a critical event.

Medical: Any kind of medical material used for relief or saving lives during the disaster.

Oil: Any kind of oil used for running the equipment.

Water as material: Water needed during response phase either as drinking or technical.



www.episecc.eu

Transportation: A device used for transporting people, equipment, vehicles and materials to and

from disaster area.

Sub-structure:

Air transport: A device used for transporting people, equipment, vehicles and materials in air, to and

from disaster area.

Vehicle: A device used for transporting people, equipment, vehicles and materials on land, to and

from disaster area.

Vessel: A device used for transporting people, equipment, vehicles and materials on sea, to and from

disaster area.

Vehicle: A device used for transporting people, equipment, vehicles and materials on land, to and

from disaster area.

Sub-structure:

Moving capability (facet): The way a vehicle is designed to move on.

Vehicle type (facet): A category of a vehicle having common characteristics related to its purpose.

Moving capability (facet): The way a vehicle is designed to move on.

Sub-structure:

By cable: A vehicle is designed to move on railway.

Off road: A vehicle is designed to move on rough terrain.

On and off the road: A vehicle is designed to move on both the prepared surface and rough terrain.

On rails: A vehicle is designed to move on railway.

On road: A vehicle is designed to move on the prepared surface – a road.

On road and rails: A vehicle is designed to move on both prepared surface and railway.



www.episecc.eu

Vehicle type (facet): A category of a vehicle having common characteristics related to its purpose.

Sub-structure:

Bus: A motor vehicle for carrying passengers.

Specialised: A vehicle specialised for a particular operation during a response to a critical event.

Infrastructure: Physical and organizational structures, systems and facilities needed for the operation

during the response to a critical event.

Sub-structure:

Coverage (facet): Coverage of the infrastructure.

Infrastructure type (facet): A category of a infrastructure used during a disaster having common


Coverage (facet): Coverage of the infrastructure.

Sub-structure:

Good: Coverage of the infrastructure is good.

None: Infrastructure does not exist.

Poor: Coverage of the infrastructures is poor.

Infrastructure type (facet): A category of a infrastructure used during a disaster having common


Sub-structure:

Communication network: A technical system for sharing information with other entities during a


Evacuation spot: A structure or zone where people are gathered or are transported to from the

disaster area.

Public utilities: A set of services provided by public or private companies consumed by the public like

electricity, natural gas, water, sewage and broadband internet.

Transportation infrastructure: Infrastructure which can be used for transportation of people and

goods in any media during a disaster.



www.episecc.eu

Communication network: A technical system for sharing information with other entities during a


Sub-structure:

CDMA2000: A family of 3G mobile technology standards for sending voice, data, and signaling data

between mobile phones and cell sites.

Dedicated IP: A dedicated IP (Internet Protocol) is a unique Internet address dedicated exclusively to

a single hosting account.

GSM: Mobile telephone network used for voice and/or data transmission.

IS-95: CDMA-based digital cellular technology.

LTE: Long-Term Evolution, commonly marketed as 4G LTE is a standard for wireless communication

of high-speed data for mobile phones and data terminals.

Public IP: An IP (Internet Protocol) address that is assigned to a computing device to allow direct

access over the Internet.

SAT IP: A protocol and IP-based architecture for receiving and distributing satellite signals.

TETRA: A professional mobile radio and two-way transceiver specification.

TETRAPOL: A digital professional mobile radio standard, analogue radio, a transmission method of

conveying voice, data, image, signal or video information using a continuous signal.

UTMS: 3rd generation of the public mobile telephone network used for voice and/or data

transmission.



www.episecc.eu

Disaster (facet): “Disaster means any situation which has or may have a severe impact on people, the

environment, or property, including cultural heritage.” (DECISION No 1313/2013/EU OF THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection

Mechanism) [5]

Sub-structure:

Appearance (facet): A way disaster performs.

Cause (facet): A person or thing that gives rise to a disaster.

Complexity (facet): A combination of several impacts or disaster types.

Disaster object (facet): A category of a disaster having common characteristics related to the object

of an impact.

Disaster progress (facet): A current status of a disaster related to the impact and its progress in time.

Disaster status (facet): Describes the current status of the disaster related to the first responders

capacity or object of the impact.

Disaster type (facet): A category of a disaster having common characteristics related to behaviour.

Impact (facet): The extent of severity or consequences a disaster poses on people, the environment,

or property, including cultural heritage.

Scope (facet): The subject matter a disaster deals with or to which it is relevant.

Spatial scope (facet): A geographical area a disaster is relevant to.

Appearance (facet): A way disaster of performs.

Sub-structure:

Slow: A slow onset of a disaster.

Sudden: A sudden onset of a disaster.



www.episecc.eu

Cause (facet): A person or thing that gives rise to a disaster.

Sub-structure:

Humans: A disaster originates from the effects of human activities, either deliberately or accidentally.

Nature: A disaster originates from forces of nature.

Technology: A disaster originates from a malfunction of a technological structure.

Humans: A disaster originates from the effects of human activities, either deliberately or accidentally.

Sub-structure:

Direct human influence: Human activities directly cause a disaster.

Indirect human influence: Human activities produce circumstances which cause a disaster.

Complexity (facet): A combination of several impacts or disaster types.

Sub-structure:

Cascading: A combination of impacts or disaster types shortly following each other.

Multiple: A combination of impacts or disaster types occurring at the same time.

Simple: Only one impact or disaster type occurs.

Disaster object (facet): A category of a disaster having common characteristics related to the object

of an impact.

Sub-structure:

Circumstance (facet): A situation affecting the way in which a disaster impacts.

Object type (facet): A group of objects affected by disaster's impact.



www.episecc.eu

Circumstance (facet): A situation affecting the way in which a disaster impacts.

Sub-structure:

Actually affected: Object is directly influenced by a disaster.

Potentially affected: There is a significant risk that an object will be influenced by a disaster in a

critical time period.

Object type (facet): A group of objects affected by disaster's impact.

Sub-structure:

Environment: A disaster which includes impact on nature/environment.

Environment and property: A disaster which impacts nature/environment and property including

cultural heritage.

People: A disaster which predominantly impacts people in terms of health, safety or well being of a

community.

People and environment: A disaster which impacts people in terms of health, safety or well being of

a community and nature/environment.

People and property: A disaster which impacts people in terms of health, safety or well being of a

community and property.

People, environment and property: A disaster which impacts people in terms of health, safety or

well being of a community, nature/environment and property including cultural heritage.

Property: A disaster which includes impact on property including cultural heritage.

Disaster progress (facet): A current status of a disaster related to the impact and its progress in time.

Sub-structure:

Disaster in progress: A disaster is in progress, meaning the impact does not change or it increases.

Disaster not started: A disaster has not started, meaning the impact is zero.

Disaster stopped: A disaster is over, meaning the impact is gone or it diminishes.



www.episecc.eu

Disaster status (facet): Describes the current status of the disaster related to the first responders

capacity or object of the impact.

Sub-structure:

Not under control: The first responders either need more resources or humans, nature/environment

and property including cultural heritage are endangered.

Under control: The first responders either do not need more resources or people,

nature/environment and property including cultural heritage are not endangered.

Disaster type (facet): A category of a disaster having common characteristics related to behaviour.

Sub-structure:

Avalanche: A quantity of snow or ice that slides down a mountainside under the force of gravity.

Cold wave: A prolonged period of excessively cold weather and the sudden invasion of very cold air

over a large area.

Debris flow: Downhill sliding or falling movement of soil and rock.

Earthquake: Sudden break within the upper layers of the earth, sometimes breaking the surface,

resulting in the vibration of the ground, which where strong enough will cause the collapse of

buildings and destruction of life and property.

Fire: An uncontrolled burning fire.

Flood: A temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water.

Heat wave: A prolonged period of excessively hot and sometimes also humid weather relative to

normal climate patterns of a certain region.

Industrial disaster: Danger originating from technological or industrial accidents, dangerous

procedures, infrastructure failures or certain human activities.

Landslide: A movement of soil or rock controlled by gravity and the speed of the movement usually

ranges between slow and rapid, but not very slow.

Migrant crisis: A huge number of people who moves from one place to another in order to find work

or better living conditions.

Refugee crisis: A huge number of people fleeing from a danger or a problem.

Rockfall: Quantities of rock or stone falling freely from a cliff face.



www.episecc.eu

Storm: Any disturbed state of an environment or astronomical body's atmosphere especially

affecting its surface, and strongly implying severe weather.

Storm surge: Rise of the water level in the sea, an estuary or lake as result of strong wind driving the

seawater towards the coast.

Subsidence: A motion of the Earth's surface as it shifts downward relative to sea level.

Transport accidents: Technological transport accidents involving mechanised modes of transport.

Tsunami: A series of waves caused by a rapid displacement of a body of water.

Volcanic eruption: A discharge of lava and gas from a volcanic vent.

Fire: An uncontrolled burning fire.

Sub-structure:

Bush fire: An uncontrolled burning fire predominantly affecting bush.

Forest fire: An uncontrolled burning fire predominantly affecting forests.

Grassland fire: An uncontrolled burning fire predominantly affecting grassland.

Urban fire: An uncontrolled burning fire predominantly affecting infrastructure and buildings.

Flood: A temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water.

Sub-structure:

Flash flood: Sudden and extreme volume of water that flow rapidly and cause inundation.

Floods from the sea in coastal areas: Occurs when normally dry, low-lying land is flooded by sea

water.

Glacial lake outburst flood: Occurs when a lake - dammed by a glacier or a terminal moraine - fails.

River flood: A temporary covering by river water of land not normally covered by water.

Urban flood: Inundation of land or property in a built environment, particularly in more densely

populated areas.



www.episecc.eu

Industrial disaster: Danger originating from technological or industrial accidents, dangerous

procedures, infrastructure failures or certain human activities.

Sub-structure:

Accident release: Occurring during the production, transportation or handling of hazardous chemical

substances.

Acid rain: A washout of an excessive concentration of acidic compounds in the atmosphere, resulting

from chemical pollutants such as sulphur and nitrogen compounds.

Chemical explosion: Violent destruction caused by explosion of combustible material, nearly always

of chemical origin.

Explosion: A sudden, loud, and violent release of energy.

Mine explosion: Occurs when natural gas or coal dust reacts with the air.

Nuclear explosion: Accidental release of radiation occurring in civil facilities, exceeding the

internationally established safety levels.

Pollution: Degradation of one or more aspects in the environment by noxious industrial, chemical or

biological wastes, from debris or man-made products and from mismanagement of natural and

environmental resources.

Storm: Any disturbed state of an environment or astronomical body's atmosphere especially

affecting its surface, and strongly implying severe weather.

Sub-structure:

Convective storm: A result of convection and condensation in the lower atmosphere and the

accompanying formation of a cumulonimbus cloud.

Local storm: Strong winds caused by regional atmospheric phenomena which are typical for a certain

area.

Snowstorm: A storm, usually in the winter season, where large amounts of snow fall.

Tropical storm: A large scale closed circulation system in the atmosphere which combines low

pressure and strong winds that rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in

the southern hemisphere.

Winter storm: An extra-tropical cyclone, a synoptic scale low pressure system that occurs in the

middle latitudes of the Earth and is connected to fronts and horizontal gradients in temperature and

dew point.



www.episecc.eu

Transport accidents: Technological transport accidents involving mechanised modes of transport.

Sub-structure:

Air transport: Technological transport accidents involving air modes of transport.

Maritime transport: Technological transport accidents involving maritime modes of transport.

Rail transport: Technological transport accidents involving rail modes of transport.

River and lake transport: Technological transport accidents involving river and lake modes of

transport.

Road transport: Technological transport accidents involving road modes of transport.

Impact (facet): The extent of severity or consequences a disaster poses on people, the environment,

or property, including cultural heritage.

Sub-structure:

Extreme impact: An extreme impact calculated in accordance with disaster impact scale or

assessment procedure.

High impact: A high impact calculated in accordance with disaster impact scale or assessment

procedure.

Low impact: A low impact calculated in accordance with disaster impact scale or assessment

procedure.

Medium impact: A medium impact calculated in accordance with disaster impact scale or

assessment procedure.

Scope (facet): The subject matter a disaster deals with or to which it is relevant.

Sub-structure:

Economic and social: Scope related to the impact to both the society wellbeing and the damage

caused by a disaster.

Economic scope: Scope related to the damage caused by a disaster.

Social scope: Scope related to the impact to the society wellbeing.



www.episecc.eu

Spatial scope (facet): A geographical area a disaster is relevant to.

Sub-structure:

Cross-border: A disaster occurs in two or more countries sharing borders.

Global: A disaster occurs globally involving more countries.

One country: A disaster occurs within one country.

Organisation (facet): An organisation is a unit established to meet goals related to disaster

management. It is structured along its management, which defines the relationships between

responsibilities, tasks and its structure.

Sub-structure:

Business model (facet): A way an organisation use and exchange information with other

organisations or data providers.

Operational scope (facet): Scope related to the decision-making level.

Organisation type (facet): Organisations having common characteristics related to the way they

founded.

Spatial scope (facet): Spatial scope of organisation's activities and/or presence.

Specialisation (facet): Organisations having common characteristics related to the specialisation to

cope with a disaster.

Business model (facet): A way an organisation use and exchange information with other

organisations or data providers.

Sub-structure:

Information from service provider: An organisation gets information from service provider.

Information from service provider and generated in organisation: An organisation gets information

from service provider and generates information in the organisation.

Information generated in organisation: Information are being generated in the organisation.



www.episecc.eu

Operational scope (facet): Scope related to the decision-making level.

Sub-structure:

Operational: An organisation manages activities at operational level.

Strategic: An organisation manages activities at strategic level.

Strategic-tactical: An organisation manages activities at strategic and tactical level.

Strategic-tactical-operational: An organisation manages activities at strategic, tactical and

operational level.

Tactical: An organisation manages activities at tactical level.

Tactical-operational: An organisation manages activities at tactical and operational level.

Organisation type (facet): Organisations having common characteristics related to the way they

founded.

Sub-structure:

Governmental: An organisation that is a part of a government.

Non-governmental: An organisation that is neither a part of a government nor a conventional for-

profit business.

Private: An organisation performing a conventional for-profit business.

Spatial scope (facet): Spatial scope of organisation's activities and/or presence.

Sub-structure:

European: An organisation with the European scope or presence.

International: An organisation with an international scope or presence.

Local: An organisation with a local scope or presence.

National: An organisation with an international scope or presence.

Regional: An organisation with an international scope or presence.



www.episecc.eu

Specialisation (facet): Organisations having common characteristics related to the specialisation to

cope with a disaster.

Sub-structure:

Civil protection: Protection of life and property in the event of a disaster.

Emergency medical assistance: Treatment and transport of people that may be life threatening or

injured during a response to a critical event.

Humanitarian assistance: Material or logistical assistance provided for humanitarian purposes.

Recovery of cultural heritage: Protection of cultural heritage in the event of a disaster.

Search and rescue operations: Search for and provision of aid to people who are in distress or

imminent danger.


d4.2. taxonomy model - episecc 2... · 2017-12-21 · the disaster project, where an ontology named...

Documents