Subject: RESCUE MEETING
Date: 01/09/04
Loc: URP
Author: AM
Presentation of Portland CrimeMapper. Discussion: getting data sets, emergencies to pursue.
SM: First meeting of the year.
For research infrastructure, may get a grant.
- We are at the bottom tier, because we’re heavily funded.
- But there was no equipment budge in our proposal.
*Getting a site visit from NSF.
*Structure our meetings.
- By Wednesday each week, decide on our agenda.
- Send ideas to Lynn by Tuesday.
New round of ITRs.
Offshoots of Rescue?
All: Introductions, new people.
YM: [Presentation: Portland Crime Mapper & 911 Call Data]
From Portland Police Department.
SM: 3 testbeds:
1. Camas. Situation awareness, assessment. University-level events.
2. Transportation
3.
PS: *Investigate COPLINK (Dawit).
Has been commercialized; they work closely with police.
Hypothetically can get data covering 20 years.
CB: Crime data is useless?
Need to focus on disasters.
Want the raw data, need duplicates.
911 dispatcher filters out redundant calls.
SM: 4 processes: collect, analyze, ?, disseminate.
NV: 9/11 data?
Lynn: Forthcoming, as paper data.
Shino: Bridge vs Golden Gate Bridge.
CB: Need a crisis.
Need first responders.
-How to impress NSF.
AM: Need expertise in getting the data.
PS: Carter’s concern…
Build components that could go into a commercial system.
Don’t bite off too big a piece.
SM: Event analysis.
Triaging, dissemination.
Agree with Padhraic, nuggets of tools are most useful end products.
CB: Nuggets vs end-to-end.
Must be crisis related.
Tornadoes – easier to study than earthquakes.
SM: We have more experience with earthquakes.
NV: Equilibrium data vs disaster data.
PS: Talk to NACS, get campus-level data.
Shino: Cellphone failure, web failure.
CB: Ham radio.
All: Human vs non-human data.
Fabio: Which humans do we get data from?
SM: Two types, post-disaster.
1. First responders.
2. Disaster workers.
3. Observers.
Proposal claim is that human input is useful.
All: Bring in experts to speak, work with.
CB: To tell us how they do things.
NV: Schedule talks every 6 months from emergency services people.
SM: What CAN we do with the data, not what CAN’T we do.
Because it’s hard to get additional data sets.
DS: Do we care about crisis prevention also?
SM: Similar technology applies to both.
NV: Not terrorism, but sensors apply to both.
CB: Predicting disasters/rare events is not a good way to get a PhD.
G: When is it a crisis.
CB: Can create data and experiments to some extent.
NV: Describe what each data set is good for.
Collection history, properties of the data set.
Shino: Eg, people had studied airplane impact on WTC.
SM: *Want to discuss information sharing, dissemination.
We haven’t discussed these yet.
Joseph: Whether you can and whether you should share info.
CB: Mismatches “burn victims” vs smoke inhalation – hospitals.
SM: *Ellis Stanley. LA earthquake data.
*Northridge earthquake – Ron Aguchi.
- At least the remote sensor perspective.
BH: The blackout in NY State.
SM: *SD Fire – E-Team.
BEA Systems.
SM: Local earthquake data.
CB: Anonymize counties that data came from.
SM: Earthquakes in Japan; tsunami.
AM: [Status]
Called North Carolina state emergency, then shore counties 911.
Called Portland EOC – they’re iced in.
Grant Roholt, RAINS-NET – Needs to discuss relationship with Sharad.
Called San Diego fire-related sources.
Fabio: [Status]
Hard to find the good data on the web.
Logs are public, but reports are private till a prosecution occurs.
SM: *Try matching CrimeMapper logs to dispatcher logs.
*Get their db?
ALL: Discussion of information sharing and dissemination.
AM: Call LOCAL OC, LA city, Irvine, etc. PD and 911 call center.
Earthquake emergency docs, mudslide?
AM: Call fire departments. Fire reports?