# Better Access to Terminology for Crisis Communications

Mikael Snaprud, Jaziar Radianti, Dag Svindseth

► To cite this version:

Mikael Snaprud, Jaziar Radianti, Dag Svindseth. Better Access to Terminology for Crisis Communications. 1st International Conference on Information Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction (ITDRR), Nov 2016, Sofia, Bulgaria. pp.93-103, 10.1007/978-3-319-68486-4_8. hal-03213132

HAL Id: hal-03213132

https://inria.hal.science/hal-03213132

Submitted on 30 Apr 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Better Access to Terminology for Crisis Communications

Mikael Snaprud<fnref n="1" />, Jaziar Radianti<fnref n="2" />, and Dag Svindseth <fnref n="3" />

**Abstract.** Crisis management depends on efficient communications with profes-
sional staff and with people who are affected by the crisis. The correct interpre-
tation of general language and technical terms is crucial to take good actions and
to save valuable time. To reduce the risk of misunderstandings we need a well-
established crisis management terminology. Several collections of terms have
been prepared for hazard areas such as pollution, radiation, fire safety, and dan-
gerous goods. Today such terminologies can be provided on different websites,
depending on how the national crisis management is organised. This distribution
and a variation of different formats and user interfaces can make them hard to
use. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to enable the term definition
retrieval from a selection of terminologies directly from the text where the term
is used. Initial experiments show that this approach can save time both for the
retrieval and for the maintenance of terminologies. People involved in training
and planning can benefit from access to definitions directly from the text of
online documents. Terminology maintainers can benefit from the automated gen-
eration of internal links in the terminology so that the terms used in the definition
of the other terms are automatically linked.

**Keywords:** Terminology, ICT - Supported Crisis Communication, Crisis
Glossary.

# 1 Introduction

Most literature in crisis management as well as in practice among crisis management
practitioners, underline the importance of crisis communications to respond to small or
large-scale incidents [1-8]. Therefore, the specific terms used in crisis communication
must be precise, to be understood in the same way both by professionals responsible
for handling a crisis and by the general citizens who need to stay in-formed about the
crisis development. Precise terminology for crisis communication will reduce the risk
of misunderstandings [9] among those who are responsible for responding the crisis.
Communications to general citizens may also rely on their understanding of terms to
ensure that they take appropriate actions in emergency situations. Unfortunately, even

<footnote n="1">¹ Tingtun AS and University of Agder, Norway
mikael.snaprud@uia.no</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Centre for Integrated Emergency Management, University of Agder, Norway
jaziar.radianti@uia.no</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Fire Chief at East Agder Fire Department, Norway
dag@oabv.no</footnote>
though crisis terminologies often are provided freely online, the existence of such re-
sources remains unknown to the people in general and limitedly used among profes-
sionals for preparations or in operations. On the other hand, the use of Information
Communication Technology (ICT) for preparedness, during the crisis or in the recovery
period is greatly adopted, especially in developed countries. The ICTs have been the
main reason for recent shifting of the nature of crisis communication [10] from a cen-
tralized command structure to multidirectional communication between a range of ac-
tors from various sectors and background (language, culture, knowledge). In such ur-
gent and complex interaction with multiple stakeholders, the risk of communication
misunderstanding may increase, and the actual (meaning) of the message may not be
properly conveyed. A shared conceptual meaning and understanding are as crucial as
the crisis communication model or technologies to enhance the common understanding
and improve the effectiveness of disaster response.

The navigation in the jungle of terms to assure correct understanding is a pressing
challenge. Taking Norway as an example, this is prevalent for most of the crucial crisis
management services including police, fire service, medical service and for the media.
Misunderstandings caused by misinterpreted terms are often only clarified in the eval-
uation phase, after the crisis response is carried out. Given the organisation of crisis
management agencies into different services, the solution may not be one singular set
of terms with an ambition to cover all aspects and services. However, as a preferred
minimum solution the different actors should have thorough knowledge about internal
terms and how others use them. For the wider audience, the media has a special respon-
sibility to use specific terms to describe crisis events. The media al-ready has style
guides and tools in place for how to spell foreign names or for words to use or avoid.
But they do cannot cover crisis management in a consistent way without sources of
reference. This situation underlines the need to raise the crisis management terminolo-
gies in the research agenda.

This paper argues that in current ICT-based crisis communication practices there is
little attention to how crisis terminology can be maintained and used efficiently for
training and operations as a part of preparedness and response in the crisis management
cycle. To support the earlier claim, the authors conduct a literature survey and several
documentations on practices for communicating crisis response, to explore how crisis
terminologies are used and maintained. In this paper, we also provide examples and
sources for crisis terminology in different fields and countries and examine the current
use of these technical terms. To this end, we propose a concept and a novel solution to
harmonize and to integrate crisis-related terminologies. We also outline how the ap-
proach can support a robust, accessible, and more human-centric ICT-based crisis com-
munication. The suggested approach is based on an online service demonstrated on the
website for the Norwegian Association for firefighters' terminology
(http://www.kbt.no).

2 Previous Studies and Paper Scope

As indicated by Mayner and Arbon [11], the need for harmonisation of the definition
of disaster terms is evident as a solid basis for building more unitary research, policy,
and practice. They provide an example of analysis of the term “disaster” in a source
with 110 glossaries containing disaster terminology, but only 52 contained the defini-
tion of the disaster. They point out that, even for one word, “disaster” there is very little
consensus, what the disaster actually means. Mayner and Arbon [11] found at least 128
different disaster definitions. Likewise, Hagelsteen and Becker [5] raise the concern
regarding the potential discrepancies in how individuals or organisations perceive the
key disaster concepts. They use the essential concepts related to the “disaster risk re-
duction (DRR)” and “capacity development” as a test case using groups of international
experts as respondents and examining documents from nine capacity development pro-
jects for DRR. Their research finds significant differences concerning how the respond-
ents define DRR concepts. This finding strengthens the earlier study conducted by Lip-
son and Warren [12] that common definition of “capacity building” is not homogeneous
among their respondents that covered NGOs from 18 countries.

Hagelsteen and Becker [5] point out the tendencies of people's attitude to underes-
timate the importance of using terminology correctly and assume that two different
parties have the same understanding as a reason for this inconsistencies. In addition,
Thywissen [9] argues that the definitions of the same terms were developed simultane-
ously and homogeneously in multiple disciplines and results in variation of definitions
for the same term, causing the so-called “Babylonian Confusion.” Thywissen [9] fur-
ther suggests a common vocabulary of unique, well-formulated definitions and con-
cepts, to avoid misunderstandings in the communication between different ac-tors.

Some efforts have been initiated to harmonise the crisis management terms using
various approaches such as by using taxonomies [13-17], terminologies-vocabularies
[18, 19], domain ontology [20-23], semantic integration [24] or developing interopera-
bility framework [25-27]. Despite the recognizing of some limitations in the use of
crisis terminology issues, how to increase the adoption of such resources in an easy
way and make them accessible, is not so much studied as the existence of such resources
and how to use them in day-to-day practices are still two separate issues. Reuter et. al
[18], for example, address the same concern as our research, i.e. how to deal with ter-
minology ambiguities in collaborative systems. This study, however, is exploratory in
essence, while the technical approach discussed in this work is more about the concep-
tual and requirement level than suggesting concrete ICT solution.

Crisis glossaries are an agreed set of terminologies formally issued by the govern-
ment, public agencies or associations covering different countries, intended to use for
harmonising and enhancing crisis management terms. Traditionally, the use of these
terms is more scholarly-education oriented, and ensuring that professionals can find
and access different disaster-related glossaries uniformly, and never fully used for the
more practical-oriented purpose. As a result, this domain is often overlooked, espe-
cially, how enable people to quickly find and use them whether they are needed for
training, crisis communication or in crisis management operations.

For the sake of clarity, we outline several boundaries that define the scope of this
paper, i.e. which ones are not part of this paper's goals, and what is the actual contri-
bution of this paper.
Firstly, the notion of establishing the better human-centric approach and integrated crisis glossary is to be applied in the local, general crisis management practices. The idea is neither for solving multilingualistic issues nor for proposing a method for achieving agreed terms in the context of international humanitarian missions where multi-actor, multi-national responders may be involved in the affected area within a single country. However, our proposed approach can potentially be expanded into this type of international, multi-actor humanitarian mission, if relevant glossaries exist for serving humanitarian actions.

Secondly, this paper is neither intended to make new crisis glossaries which should consider non-homogeneous vocabularies, standardisation such as NIEM (www.niem.gov), conversion or translation to semantic mapping nor to analyse different understandings that may occur between organisations.

Thirdly, this paper is neither about proposing terminologies, taxonomies, vocabularies or domain ontology, nor solving technical interoperability issues. These fields have been thoroughly scrutinized through massive efforts e.g. in European projects such as DISASTER (disaster-fp7.eu), SecInCoRe (www.secincore.eu), EPISECC (www.episecc.eu), or CRISP (www.crispproject.eu), in addition to some papers cited earlier.

This paper is about the current issues hindering efficient access to terminologies for crisis communications, and a proposed approach to resolve them.

# 3 Methodology and Examples of Terminologies

In this article, a qualitative method is applied, especially document collection and literature review, and a simple technical implementation of integrated glossary service as a proof of concept for our suggested solution. The verification from a practitioner adds the confidence towards the need on the proposed notion.

We surveyed documents containing to obtain a sample of official information on glossaries used for crisis management worldwide. The goal is to provide a concrete illustration on the domain discussed in this paper. The glossary document examination is not intended for an exhaustive search, but instead to point out exemplary cases of the weaknesses of current presentation of emergency management glossaries, making it hard for users to find them, as explained in Section 4.

While ICT-based support or websites inform public the best practices intended for all in responding to hazard, they rarely include the terminology. The table 1 below is to show some examples.

In this paper, we propose a novel approach to support disaster communication through an innovative glossary service, integrated into the ICT-based solution, which is more human-centric oriented and accessible. This approach could be used to provide access to relevant terminologies from the resources in Table 1. The weaknesses of the current search method of these crisis terminologies and proposed and implemented technology to support more human-centric crisis glossary services are illustrated further in Section 4 and 5 respectively.
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Examples of practices for responding/alerting disasters in different countries</caption><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>Practice</td><td>Glossary on site</td><td>Languages covered</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Japan</td><td>Emergency Warning System</td><td>Not found</td><td>English, Japanese</td></tr><tr><td>Queensland Australia</td><td>Standard Emergency Warning Signal (SEWS)</td><td>Not found</td><td>20 language translation service via phone call</td></tr><tr><td>The Netherlands</td><td>NL-Alert</td><td>Not found</td><td>Dutch only</td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td>Kriseinfo</td><td>Not found</td><td>Norwegian and English but only Norwegian up to date.</td></tr><tr><td>US</td><td>Integrated Public Alert &amp; Warning System (IPAWS)</td><td>Not found</td><td>17 languages on the site</td></tr></tbody></table>

There are several initiatives across government to collect terms related to their sector of responsibility related to crisis management. The following sections present a selection of them from Norway, Indonesia and international ones from Europe. Most of them are presented in different record formats. The modes for access also vary widely from PDF documents to access via application programming interface.

In Norway, we have located three groups of sources featuring government agencies like:

1. The Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection (DSB) or Miljøkommune (www.miljokommune.no = environment municipality).

2. Environment Agency and clusters of organisations like the KBT (a cluster for fire safety) or AFTERM (a cluster for coastal hazard terms).

3. The law, regulations and guidance notes to the law, and standards.

All of these agencies manage their own set of terms. Some of them have an international collaboration to manage translations. The KBT has a collaboration with the Federation of the European Union Fire Officer Associations with 25 languages (FEU, see Table 2). The European Environment Agency is another relevant European source covering more than 30 languages. The coverage of terms in different languages seems to vary. Globally, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has only one glossary with five terms related to Pauses During Conflict. Most of the disaster-related terms in UN agency are maintained in UNISDR (The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction), and available in all official United Nations languages (https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/7817).

We also examine Indonesia, one of the countries that is considered by UNISDR to be among the most disaster-prone countries in the world. Indonesia faces multiple hazards such as earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, flood, landslide, drought, and forest fires, and terrorism [28]. The National Disaster Management Authority of Indonesia provides a limited collection of technical terms derived from the Act Number 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management. Apparently, the terms are limited compared to the disaster risks faced by this country in different likely disaster scenarios.
In Australia, Emergency Management Australia publishes the glossary as a pdf form, as a part of Australian Emergency Manual series. The glossary is intended for different organisations: public, private and community organisations. This is an example of a glossary document that has clear intended users.

The most comprehensive collection of glossaries is gathered by the US Department of Health and Human Services. It covers a wide range of disasters, emergency managements and humanitarian relief glossaries across agencies in the US and worldwide. The summary and links to the sources can be seen in Table 2.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Examples of technical term collections from different countries</caption><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>Example</th><th>Remark/name</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Norway</td><td>DSB</td><td>Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection (DSB)</td></tr><tr><td>Miljøkommune</td><td>A website with resources for municipalities</td></tr><tr><td>Environment Agency</td><td>National environment directorate</td></tr><tr><td>Law and regulations</td><td>Norwegian legal documents</td></tr><tr><td>Standards</td><td>Standards Norway, responsible for national standards</td></tr><tr><td>KBT</td><td>Federation of national agencies related to fire safety</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">European/ International</td><td>FEU</td><td>The Federation of the European Union Fire Officer Associations</td></tr><tr><td>Prevention web</td><td>UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)</td></tr><tr><td>EIONET</td><td>European Environment Information and Observation Network</td></tr><tr><td>Indonesia</td><td>National Disaster Management Authority</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td>Emergency Management Australia</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>US</td><td>US Department of Health and Service</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4 Current Use of Collections of Terms

The ways to retrieve the definitions are very varied, but all of them will require the user to carry out some navigation to locate the relevant definition. We are aware of five online approaches available for users:

1. General search engine (possibly use the “define:” option);

2. Search for term in general dictionary (requires user to find e.g. dictionary.com.);

3. Search for term in a relevant term source (requires user to find e.g. KBT.no);
4. Search for term in the law/regulation (requires user to find and browse lovdata.no [access to a collection of online legal resources] in Norway e.g.).

5. The user uses a built-in functionality like “Define” on an iPad or Kindle device, or a browser extension to retrieve Wikipedia definitions.

The approaches 1 and 2 will require the user to switch context from the text where the term appeared and often return many irrelevant hits. Approaches 3 and 4 require that the user is aware of the specific sources. Approaches 1-4 all have in common that the user must change context and carry out a search on some other webpage. In some cases, user typos will be caught and corrected, and some services simply do not return any hits for mistyped terms. The 5th approach can keep the user in the context but will not give access to the specific crisis terminologies.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Example retrieval of the Norwegian term "antennelse" [ignition]. The text is part of a legal regulation about fire safety in buildings, and the definition is retrieved from KBT.</figcaption></figure>

# 5 Current Representations of Collections of Terms

We note two challenges with the current practice, namely that the definitions of terms can be scattered across many sources, and that they are only available in for-mats that do not well support re-use in terms of machine-readability, such as tables on webpages or PDF documents. Tim Berners Lee proposed a Five-star deployment scheme for open data, to indicate the level of applicability for further use of the data (http://5stardata.info/en/).

As an example, we can look at the two Norwegian data sources KBT and AFTERM dealing with fire hazards and coastal area pollution hazards respectively. The data in both sources are stored in a database and published on HTML pages. So, the format is open and non-proprietary, URIs can be used to point to specific definitions of terms in the KBT source, and some of the external sources are provided as hyperlinks. This would award 5 out of 5 stars for the KBT representation. This will allow for efficient re-use and projection of these resources on other texts as indicated in the following section.
# 6 A Novel Approach to Access Term Definitions

The novel approach will allow the user to stay in the context where the term occurs and retrieve term definitions in a pop-up. Figure 1 shows an example from reading a Norwegian text about fire safety in buildings. The example shows the definition of the Norwegian term antennelse (set fire to/ignition).

There are some services provided on the iPhone and Kindle that can deliver a similar output. However, these are limited to their hardware platforms and do not support users with other platforms.

Important difference compared to such solutions is the crucial narrowing of scope. The selection of terms will be limited to the disaster management area to allow the user to focus on the communication and not have to wade in long lists of irrelevant search hits. Images or video clips added to the term definitions can also help to con-vey the meaning more efficiently and overcome language barriers.

The approach can also support multiple terminologies. In this way, one click can replace the time consuming exercise to send the user off to multiple websites and to locate and query the individual terminologies for the requested definition. The proposed solution can also provide a ranking among multiple terminology sources if needed.

A similar approach can be used to support translations of a selection of relevant terms into additional languages. Please not that this will not replace a complete translation but can yet help non-native speakers to grasp the message.

The solution is designed in such a way that it is accessible for all regardless of disabilities, conforming to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0). This means that people using a mouse and a web browser like Firefox, Chrome or Internet Explorer, will get a similar user experience like those using a screen reader like Jaws or NVDA using the keyboard to navigate among definitions of terms. The approach is also designed to work across all common web browsers and platforms including mobile devices and tablets. These capabilities taken together forms the basis of a tool to support learning [29], for disaster preparedness.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Example retrieval of term definition from KBT backdraft. The definition of "forbrenning" (combustion) refer to the definition of "gløding" (glowing).</figcaption></figure>
We also expect that the simplified retrieval of definitions can support the terminol-
ogy maintainers in their work, e.g. to harmonize the content among the different termi-
nologies. A time-consuming part of the maintenance of terminologies is also the
bookkeeping of internal links where one term that is defined is used in the definition of
another term. Changes in the glossary can have far-reaching cascading effects that are
currently manually maintained. Our approach will support the automated generation of
internal links as shown in figure 2.

The definitions can be shaped with simple formatting like bullets or emphasized text
and can contain images. Figure 3 shows an image to illustrate the definition of the term
"oljeforurensning" (oil pollution). To support the training for oral communications, the
definitions can also be read aloud with an integrated text to speech solution.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Example to show definition of the term "oljeforurensing" (Oil pollution) illustrated with an image</figcaption></figure>

The definitions can link in external references with additional information. This way
the definition can link supporting materials or further illustrations e.g. in the form of
content from Wikipedia, sound files for correct pronunciation, or video clips.

7 Conclusions and Future Works

In this paper, we have argued that in the current improvement of crisis communication
technologies, the importance of shared understanding regarding the main concepts in
the messages being exchanged is often overlooked. Even though terminologies are
available and well-made, they are not necessarily well integrated into the communica-
tion resources or easy to use. A novel approach to unify the access to multiple termi-
nologies and to improve the retrieval functionality has been introduced. The approach
has been implemented for the terminology maintained by the Norwegian Firefighters
Association (KBT) and has already demonstrated contributions to improved usability both for the terminology users and for the maintainers.

Future steps will include to enhance the capabilities of the approach to make it more robust and to seek collaboration with forward-looking crisis response organisations to carry out further experiments both for terminology maintenance and for crisis training initiatives.

## References

1. Iluzia Iacob, A., et al.: Strategy Map for the Crisis Communication. Procedia Economics and Finance 23, 1119-1124 (2015).

2. Coombs, W.T.: The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research. Business Horizons 58 (2), 141-148 (2015).

3. Drake, J.L., et al.: Communicating Climate-Change and Natural Hazard Risk and Cultivating Resilience, Springer (2016).

4. Edworthy, J., et al.: Passing crisis and emergency risk communications: The effects of communication channel, information type, and repetition. Applied Ergonomics 48, 252-262 (2015).

5. Hagelsteen, M., Becker, P.: A Great Babylonian Confusion: Terminological Ambiguity in Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction in the International Community. In: 5th International Disaster and Risk Conference (IDRC), Global Risk Forum (2014).

6. Johansen, W., Aggerholm, H.K., Frandsen, F.: Entering new territory: A study of internal crisis management and crisis communication in organisations. Public Relations Review, 38 (2), 270-279 (2012).

7. Ki, E.-J., Nekmat, E.: Situational crisis communication and interactivity: Usage and effectiveness of Facebook for crisis management by Fortune 500 companies. Computers in Human Behavior 35, 140-147 (2014).

8. Liu, B.F., Fraustino, J.D.: Beyond image repair: Suggestions for crisis communication theory development. Public Relations Review 40 (3), 543-546 (2014).

9. Thywissen, K.: Components of risk: a comparative glossary. In: UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), Bonn, Germany, pp. 1-48 (2006).

10. Tapia, A.H., Moore, K.A., Johnson, N.J.: Beyond the trustworthy tweet: A deeper understanding of microblogged data use by disaster response and humanitarian relief organisations.

11. Mayner, L., Arbon, P.: Defining disaster: The need for harmonisation of terminology. Australasian Journal of Disaster & Trauma Studies, vol.19 (2015).

12. Lipson, B., Warren, H.: ‘Taking Stock’–A Snapshot of INGO Engagement in Civil Society Capacity Building. INTRAC International NGO Training and Research Centre, Oxford, (2006).

13. Barthe, A.M., Truptil, S., Bénaben, F.: Towards a taxonomy of crisis management simulation tools. In: ISCRAM 2015 Conference Proceedings – 12th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. Kristiansand, University of Agder (UiA), Norway (2015).

14. Pottebaum, J., Marterer, R., Schneider, S.: Taxonomy of IT support for training emergency response & management. In: ISCRAM 2014 Conference Proceedings – 11th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, pp. 374–378 (2014).

15. Addams-Moring, R., Kekkonen, M., Zhao, S.: A simple taxonomy for mobile emergency announcement systems. In: Proceedings of ISCRAM 2005 – 2nd International Conference
on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. Royal Flemish Academy of
Belgium, Brussels (2005).

16. Grant, T., Van der Wal, A.J.: A Taxonomy of Market Mechanisms for Information Sharing in Crisis Response Coalitions. In: Proceedings of the 9th International ISCRAM Conference (2012).

17. Shamoug, A., Juric, R.: Addressing Interoperability through the Semantic of Information Highway in Managing Responses in Humanitarian Crises. In: Proceedings of the 8th International ISCRAM Conference-Lisbon (2011).

18. Reuter, C., et al.: Dealing with terminologies in collaborative systems for crisis management. In: Proceedings of the 9th International ISCRAM Conference. Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada (2012).

19. Temnikova, I., Castillo, C., Vieweg, S.: EMTerms 1. 0: a terminological resource for crisis tweets. In: ISCRAM 2015 proceedings of the 12th international conference on information systems for crisis response and management (2015).

20. Malizia, A., et al.: Emergency Alerts for all: an ontology based approach to improve accessibility in emergency alerting systems. In: Proceedings of ISCRAM 2008 – 5th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, Washington DC (2008).

21. Galton, A., Worboys, M.: An ontology of information for emergency management. in Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (2011).

22. Liu, S., Shaw, D., Brewster, C.: Ontologies for crisis management: a review of state of the art in ontology design and usability. In: Proceedings of the ISCRAM 2013 - Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management conference (2013).

23. Javed, Y., Norris, T., Johnston, D.: Ontology-Based Inference to Enhance Team Situation Awareness in Emergency Management. In: Proceedings of the ISCRAM 2011 - 8th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, Lisbon (2011).

24. Barros, R., et al.: Edxl-rescuer ontology: Conceptual model for semantic integration. In: Proceedings of the ISCRAM 2015- 12th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (2015).

25. Gatial, E., Hluchy, L.: Data Interoperability Approach during Major Accidents. In: Conference Proceedings ISCRAM 2016 – 13th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (2016).

26. Park Jr. J.S.: Enabling cross-organisation interoperability through dynamic directory integration. In: Proceedings of ISCRAM 2005 – 2nd International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. Brussels: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium (2005).

27. Buscher, M., et al.: A New Manhattan Project?: Interoperability and Ethics in Emergency Response Systems of Systems. In: Proceedings of ISCRAM 2013 -10th International ISCRAM Conference, Baden-Baden, Germany (2013).

28. AIPA: Indonesia's Country Report on Disaster Response Management in AIPA Caucus Report. ASEAN Inter-Parlementary Assembly-AIPA, Manila, Philippines (2011).

29. Snaprud, M.H., Helmikstøl, G.R.: A Socratic E-Learning Approach. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning 8(2) (2015).