The OASIS EMTC (the
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information System’s Emergency
Management Technical Committee), has developed a list of “event” terms for use
in alert messaging systems. The creation of the list is an attempt to put some
consistency into an important piece of information found in alert messages –
the subject event.
A subject event justifies why
the message was created in the first place, and it helps the alerting authority
anchor the information contained in the message to a specific time and place
for the message audience. The subject event is central to alert messages that
use the OASIS CAP standard.
The EMTC generated the
“event” terms list in response to concerns expressed by the Global Disaster
Preparedness Center (GDPC), a resource center hosted by the American Red Cross.
The GDPC raised concerns that the varied and free form usage of event terms is
inconsistent in CAP services making it difficult to compare messages from
different originating sources. As consumers of alert messages, they found there
is no quick and definitive way to compare the language and meaning of the event
terms found in various CAP messages.
Understanding this, the EMTC
approach to the “event terms list” (referred to as the “list” going forward in
this document) has been to focus on “how” the list can help when comparing
event terms. The design and management of the list is such that consumers of
CAP messages, looking to compare event terms from different originating
sources, will have a means to do so.
The EMTC also recognizes that
many alerting authorities have their own terms; and that these terms, some long
established, already work well in the communities they serve. Therefore, with
the advent of the list, it is not suggested that alerting authorities change to
using the OASIS event terms as listed, it is only suggested that the
originating CAP systems for those authorities make a reference to the terms.
Essentially, the EMTC defers
to each and every alerting authority their choice of terms as those authorities
have had many years to create a relationship with their audiences. The goal of
this EMTC list is only to facilitate a more interoperable exchange of
information to consuming parties. Interoperability means that consumers, even
those not associated with alerting authority in any way, should also be able to
easily process the information. With the methodology outlined in this
document, it is hoped this objective can be accomplished. The OASIS EMTC is
asking CAP originators and CAP consumers to play a part in making this happen.
Ultimately, OASIS hopes users, like the GDPC, will see the benefits.
CAP is designed as a means to
convey information associated to an event of interest. It does this for the
purposes of alerting audiences to the impacts of that same event.
Identifying an event of
interest starts the process of creating an alert with the event becoming the
subject of the alert message. Subsequently, CAP is then used to house the
pieces of information associated to that alert. Consumers of CAP messages,
those considered partners to the alerting authorities generating alerts, help
disseminate and present that information to the intended final audience.
Before a discussion on
conveying information can be made however, additional background on a variety
of concepts pertaining to alerting information, including the meaning of the
term “event” as it used in CAP, is required.
An event is something that
happens in a given place during an interval of time. It is the recognition of
some activity that is a deviation from the normal state of things. An event
only becomes significant when affected parties observe, or are anticipated to
observe, some known measure of impact. On a very basic level, simply existing
is enough for an event to generate interest. On a more practical level,
authorities, with expertise on the nature of certain hazardous or concerning
events, may classify an event as significant based on the real or anticipated
impacts of the event.
In the case of “Public
Alerting”, alerting authorities determine whether the impacts of an “event of
interest” is concerning enough to issue a formal alert. This is their
responsibility; and they can do this consistently because they have built up a
pre-defined and deterministic cause for alarm based on a known set of
conditions of similar events. In this situation, the alerting authority has
assumed the role of defining the impacts of significance on behalf of the
public audience they serve. An event, based on those measures, becomes the
subject of an alert.
CAP consumers are aware that
some of the pieces of information within a CAP message are optional while some
of the information is required. The <event> element within a CAP message
is a required element. It is the only required element in a CAP message that by
definition is directly associated with the subject event. Unfortunately, this
has resulted in many CAP consumers attempting to rely on the element as a means
of comparing the subject events across messages.
However, the <event>
element is a free form text element meant to communicate with the final
audience and not meant for the automated systems to process and make decisions
on. The only constraint on <event> is that it be in the same language as
indicated by the <language> element of the <info> block - but even
that constraint is not easily confirmed. Therefore, for consumers such as the
GDPC, the ability to rely on this element as currently defined, for uses other
than display purposes, is not always possible.
Consequently, it is
understandable that some believe that the varied use of the <event>
element contradicts the concept of interoperability. One possible solution
might be to have originators standardize use of the <event> element to
some standard list of values to overcome this interoperability problem.
However, it is the opinion of the EMTC, that the <event> element in CAP
should not be re-purposed for this task. The <event> element has been
established as an audience element and should remain as such. The EMTC believes
other existing CAP elements should be employed to facilitate interoperability.
To “type” something is to
declare something (formally, or informally) as sharing similar characteristics
to things that went before it. Three key points to be made when “typing”
something are…
1)
Who is making the
declaration?
2)
How is it
formalized?
3)
What pre-existing
characteristics are actually being “typed”?
CAP makes heavy use of the
concept of “type”, but for things like subject events, thwe EMTC doesn’t
actually define the characteristics. CAP leaves the typing of events up to the
communities that use CAP. Type will figure prominently in the discussions in this
document.
When an event is identified
as a subject event, it is helpful if the alerting authority and audience have
some pre-existing knowledge of the expected impacts of the event. That prior
knowledge comes from associating the subject event to a type of event. When an
alerting authority classifies an event based on a set of conditions of other
similar events, they are effectively categorizing a type of event. All events
that meet that set of conditions are categorized to that type. Knowing what the
impacts for a certain type of event are, assists in communicating the impacts
of any single subject event.
The <event> element, as
defined in CAP, is described as… “the text denoting the type of the subject
event of the alert message”. This means that the authority is not actually
citing the specific subject event in the <event> element, only its type. The
most common way to classify a type of event is by a term given to describing
the environmental conditions associated to the event. For example, a subject
event like “hurricane Katrina”, would have an event type classification of
“hurricane” as hurricane is the term given to events with weather conditions
characteristic of a hurricane.
However, other typing schemes
may work off of other aspects of an event. For example, alerting authorities
may “type” an event based on its duration (short / medium / long), or its
severity (extreme / severe / moderate / etc.), or its scale (EF0 through EF5 as
with tornado events) or use proxy terms such as in color based systems (red /
orange / yellow), etc. The EMTC list is primarily based on the most common
typing classification – an event’s “physical” characteristics – but other
typing terms are present.
An alert is a transmitted “signal”
to heighten attention and/or initiate preparation for action. For
this attention and preparation to be meaningful, a real or anticipated subject event
is necessary. As stated, it is by reference to this subject event that the
alert ties the message found in the alert to a time and place.
For many alerting
authorities, an event, simply by its event type definition, is an alert-able
event. For example, a “dangerous animal” is an alert-able event simply because
of what its event type definition is. For other authorities, the event is only
significant and alert-able when a marked set of environmental conditions define
its type. For example, an authority may declare a “wind” event an alert-able
event based on a certain wind speed level marker. Regardless of how the need
for an alert was determined, the authority went through a subjective analysis
identifying event types. All this so that the subject event for any given alert
message has a type classification that aids in constructing alert messages for
an audience.
Identifying events and event
types is often not enough. Organizing an alert message and using meaningful
terms for communicating hazardous or concerning impacts to an audience is just
as important. This is the social aspect of alerting and this is where the
concept of an alert type arises.
An alert type is usually just
the type of event transposed to also being the type of alert. For example, a
“blizzard event”, of event type “blizzard”, would often lead to a “blizzard
alert” of alert type “blizzard”. Since an alert message requires a subject
event to center the message on, it is natural to make this simple transposition
of event types to alert types. This transposition activity holds true for other
event type schemes as well (i.e. a “Red event” becoming a “Red alert”, etc.).
However, the practice of
setting an alert type for alerting authorities is just as inconsistent around
the world as is setting event types. For example, a “hot dry weather” event,
conducive to the possibility of bush fires, may result in alerts such as
“bushfire emergency” or “red flag warning”. The alert types here are “bushfire”
and “red flag”, two terms not necessarily or immediately understood to mean
similar things – especially across different communities. Secondly, is the
event type considered to be “bushfire” or “dry weather”?
Regardless of the what the
event terms used actually signify, the overall social aspect of alerting has
been established within existing communities that uses those terms.
Furthermore, for this exampled case, it should be pointed out that the alert
terms “emergency” and “warning” are not uncommon variations for the choice of
term for an alert. Nevertheless, the conclusion is that the practice of using
terms for naming events and alerts can vary considerably making comparisons
difficult.
Ultimately, public alerting
is not meaningful if the message is not understood. Regardless of the term
assigned to the event or alert, the social responsibility of an alerting authority
is to effectively communicate the hazards and concerns associated to a subject
event. In each case, representatives of the alerting authorities that chose
these terms felt the chosen term was the correct one for that situation. OASIS
is not claiming any jurisdiction over the choice of terms in public alerting or
in CAP.
Since defining what event
types are alert-able is a “community of users” decision; and since properly
referencing subject events to an event type is an aspect of effective
communication, picking the best term (display label) for known event types
can’t possibly be done centrally by one group. To be successful in such an
exercise, there are a number of additional considerations regarding an event
that all parties need to understand. The list below is not a complete list but
the list does demonstrate various aspects of the larger event term problem.
1)
The same event
can affect different communities differently. For example, a smoke event can
affect one community concerned with Air Quality and Health while at the same
time it can affect another community concerned with Transportation.
2)
The same event
can affect a national community in one way and a local community in other ways.
For example, a forest fire can affect logistical firefighting exercises on a
large scale but cause evacuation activities on a smaller scale.
3)
The same event
may be easy to describe in one language but not another. For example, the term
“AMBER alert” is well known in the English language but its direct translation
may not easily survive into another language.
4)
An event may be
composed of many smaller events and the communication of many smaller events
simultaneously may require the use of a broader term to get the message across.
For example, storm surge, heavy rain, strong winds, coastal flooding,
tornadoes, etc… may all be part of a hurricane event but a message full of
references to the many smaller events may not be effective as they could
overwhelm the audience. However, any of these smaller events occurring on their
own could easily make up the subject event of a separate alert.
5)
An event often
comes with descriptors that authorities have used for many years for alerts
based on a how the subject event was viewed in the past. The use of these
descriptors can create confusion. For example, a “Thunderstorm” event and a
“Severe Thunderstorm” event. “Severe” is one of several allowable CAP values
used by agents to filter CAP alert messages but if the value is set to
“Extreme” and the event is still termed as a “Severe Thunderstorm” confusion
can arise.
6)
An event may be
described differently in cause and effect situations. For example, an
earthquake event that spawns a possible tsunami event may result in different
originators referencing either event type in a CAP message. The alert is
“Tsunami Warning” for an anticipated tsunami event but the cause event was the
“Earthquake” event. Alerting Authorities could focus on one, or the other, or
the combination of the two, as the subject event of the CAP alert message
7)
An event may be
considered a trigger event by an alerting authority causing the authority to issue
an alert focusing on a secondary event that they themselves want to initiate.
For example an “Evacuation Order” that contains a message that talks about the act
of evacuating, and may involve very little discussion to the trigger event that
spawned the order in the first place.
8)
An event may be
described by using a proxy term. For example, “red flag” is a term that can be
used to describe an event where a triggering weather event is underway that is
conducive to a secondary fire event occurring. Much like a tsunami event
prompted by an earthquake event, the possible fire event is prompted by an
existing weather event. However, in this case, the term “red flag” is a proxy
term generalizing the possibility of several fire events.
9)
Two event terms
may have the same core term but use different adjectives to qualify the event,
thus creating two different and independent event types solely based on the
choice of adjective. For example, a “bush fire” and a “chemical fire”. While
related due to the core term “fire”, they are actually quite different event
terms only connected through the broader term “fire”.
10)
An event term may
not even be an event at all. For example, an “air quality” event is an
incomplete definition as air quality is actually a continuous state. It is only
implied that the true event is a “poor air quality” event. The repeated usage
of the term “air quality”, for the purpose of issuing alerts for “poor air
quality”, has led to a subtle training of the audience over time to interpret
“air quality” as “poor air quality” when associated with a public alert.
11)
An event term
choice may be subject to the behaviors and constraints of the presentation
systems in play. For example, the idea of keeping messages short for a
particular presentation medium, or only including a short attention grabbing
<headline>. For example, “highway alert”.
Consequently, for an event
terms list to successfully accommodate all interested parties, users of the
list have to recognize that the EMTC list of terms will be large to accommodate
a variety of interpretations. Any community that contributes new event terms
will likely be adding to an ever-growing list. Luckily, there are ways to
engineer solutions to such problems.
One strategy to help
automated systems that auto-process the delivery of the alert message to the
final audience is to codify values for certain pieces of information in the
message. Coded values, if formatted properly, can alleviate the dimension of
language as an issue to resolve when processing an alert. Applying a code to
each item in a list is desirable for automated systems and systems that deal
across languages.
Codifying event types is also
helpful for applying advanced processing in alerting systems. For example, a
coded value for a pre-defined event type allows consumers to have a pre-defined
response to any alert message identifying to that event type. That response
could be for simple tasks such as routing or filtering or it could be for more
advanced tasks such as creating a unique presentation for a certain type of
event. In CAP, codifying event types is facilitated by originators populating
the <eventCode> element.
A group is a collection of
participants that share a common trait. In the case of XML, a language based
messaging protocol, there are two basic user groups. One group is the final
intended audience (the end clients of the information contained within the XML
message), and the other is the partner group (the agents along the path of
distribution that source the XML for decision making information). Both these
groups are served by the same CAP-XML alert message.
There are elements in the CAP
schema that are intended for one group or the other. For example, many of the
free form elements in the CAP-XML schema are intended for the final audience,
while many of the enumerated elements are intended for agents along the path of
distribution. As stated, the <event> element is free form and conveys an
event type to the final audience. Conversely, the <eventCode> element is
a pre-determined element with managed values, and conveys an event type to
agents along the path, allowing them to set up something specific in advance
such as filtering or routing.
There is one additional
event-based decision-making element in CAP. Unfortunately, like <event>,
it does not come with much guidance on how to use it properly and existing
practices with this element are as varied as the <event> element itself.
Besides, it is a very general element and is not specific enough for consumers
to use for most event comparison purposes. This element is the <category>
element.
Like the <event>
element, the CAP standard defines a <category> element to broadly
categorize subject events referenced in CAP messages. The <category>
element is a required element with a set of pre-defined values for this
element. Automated processing on the consumer side could potentially use
<category> to filter to some sort of subset list of events of interest.
Unfortunately, consumers have to rely on the originators upstream to set the
values appropriately and consistently if interoperability is the goal.
Usually, originators just
include one <category> for the hazardous or concerning event of interest
in a CAP message, and that assignment usually just aligns with the jurisdiction
of the alerting authority. This defeats the purpose of <category>. For
example, an alert issued for a “volcanic ash” event may have a <category>
assignment of only “Health” if a health agency issued the alert, whereas it may
have a <category> assignment of only “Met” if a meteorological agency
issued the alert. The recommended use of <category> is to have multiple
instances of the <category> element present in the CAP message - one
instance for each category that applies. The CAP consumer could then reliably
use a filter to look for the categories that interest them and then just
present the <event> value as is to the intended audience. If an alerting
authority added a new event type to their list of alert-able events, a consumer
could build a system filtered to <category> and not miss any new type of
alert that the authority added.
OASIS is not intending to
promote <category> as a solution to the <event> issue stated in the
outset of this document, but understanding <category> and its traits as
compared to <event>, will help us address the event issue. The two
important traits are re-listed here.
1) <category> allows for multiple
instances of the element in a single CAP message. Therefore, CAP does not
constrain events to being in only one category. The <event> element
however is constrained to one value.
2) <category> is a broad
categorization, not enough to inform on the full nature of the event.
Therefore, consumers can use it to filter alerts only at the broad scale. The
<event> element however can be either broad or narrow as needed for the
audience of interest
These two differences figure
in the methodology to solve the event type comparison issue discussed in this
document.
As mentioned earlier, the
social aspect of alerting is a primary concern for alerting authorities. The
chosen terms used in the message exist for the purposes of communicating effectively
with an audience. However, when inspecting the terms used across various
systems, not surprisingly, a wide range of terms are used. Upon further
inspection, the terms are not just similar terms for the same thing, but terms
that span a range of terms across one or more spectra of terms. This happens
both at the event level and the alert level and even authorities themselves
sometimes have a hard time interpreting one another’s choice of terms.
The following is discussion
on terms across spectrums, which will factor into the decisions made regarding
what event terms may make it into the list.
Terms can be very specific or
very general depending on the information that needs to be conveyed. This is
especially true for public alerting. For example, usually the term used for the
event is often the same term used for the alert (i.e. a “wind” event leading to
a “wind warning”). However, some alerting authorities generalize the type of
alert by using broader terms (i.e. a “wind” event leading to a “weather
warning”).
Furthermore, if a combination
of certain events tends to occur at the same time due to the nature of the
events, broader terms are quite often used as a catch all for the individual
events (i.e. a “wind” event, plus a “rain” event, plus a “storm surge” event
all leading to a “tropical storm” alert). From any one physical location
affected by all the individual events, using “tropical storm” makes sense as a
catch all, but for a segment of the audience affected by only a subset of the
events, such as those on higher ground, should they be subjected to the “storm
surge” aspect of the catch all alert type?
The example below shows a
simple example of “Wind”. There may be many broad to narrow spectrums that
include the term wind, but for this discussion the spectrum that includes the
CAP category “Met” is used.
An authority could elect to
use the broad event term “weather” or the narrow term “small craft wind” when
naming an event. For example, the following combination of CAP elements is
possible
<event> = “weather”
<category> = “Met”
as well as…
<event> = “wind”
<category> = “Met”
or even…
<event> = “small craft wind”
<category> = “Met”
and so on.
Additionally, reference terms
can appear on more than one broad to narrow spectrum. This is one area where
the <category> discussion above is relevant. For example, using the
“smoke” example from earlier, smoke is a broad term that one can narrow to
either “dense smoke”, affecting Transportation, or “second hand smoke”,
affecting Air Quality and Health.
The impacts of a smoke event
could be associated to two different CAP <category> values, “Health” and
“Transport”. In this case, the broad term would need more context if there is a
consumer that wants to filter for alert messages in just one of either
category.
Furthermore, if the “dense
smoke” is from a chemical fire, and the alerting authority is issuing an alert
for this smoke with both the Health and Transport communities in mind, do they
issue two messages or one? Do they issue a general alert message discussing
both impacts or two alert messages discussing the impacts in each category
separately knowing there is an specific audience for each category? Practices
are many and varied and often go to how the authority conveys the impacts in
the message. OASIS has no jurisdiction over such alerting practices leaving
that up to the authorities themselves, but the practices affect the terms used.
Alerts can be used to alert
audiences to events of interest that have happened, are presently happening, or
are expected to happen in the future. If an event is moving, such as a “storm”,
it can be considered happening now to some and happening in the future to
others. Furthermore, if an event is only anticipated to happen, it may end up
not happening if the conditions leading up to the event change before the event
happens. All this can affect the chosen terms used to describe an event across
the time spectrum.
Consider for a moment a term
like “forest fire”. Since a forest fire is an event by its nature, something
that deviates from the normal condition of no fire, the term “forest fire” is
an acceptable event type term. However, if an authority wants to define forest
fires types for existing forest fires and future forest fires, how is that
accomplished? Terms such as “forest fire situation” or “forest fire threat”
come to mind, along with many others similar terms. When inspecting these
choice of terms however, a sense of timing can be inferred by the additional
qualifying term. The term “situation” suggests a current event and the term
“threat” suggests a future event. For completeness, an example of an additional
qualifying term representing the past could be “incident”.
Another observation about
terms like…threat, situation and incident, is that they themselves can also be
considered a thing of interest. They are abstract things as opposed to real
things, but they can be a subject event of a message (i.e. a message that says
“we have a threat”). They can be “typed” (i.e. a threat of type “forest fire”),
and they do convey a sense that something is happening that is a deviation from
the normal state, so they can also be classified as events. NOTE: As a language
construct, the term “forest fire threat” is made up of the noun “threat” and a
noun adjunct “forest fire”. A noun adjunct is also a noun, but has been related
to adjunct status by its usage as a qualifier. A noun adjunct is not the
subject or object of a sentence.
Alerts can be used to alert
audiences to events of interest that are minor, major, or anywhere in between.
If an additional qualifying term is used for an event term that infers an
urgency, such as “concern”, “problem”, “issue”, “warning”, “emergency”, etc…
there is an urgency based qualifying term present.
Another
observation about urgency based qualifying terms is that they themselves can
also be considered a thing of interest and can be typed. Just like past,
present and future qualifying terms, they are nouns and the same interpretation
applies.
NOTE: the CAP-XML standard
already has an element that handles urgency. The <urgency> element is to
help consuming systems process the alert message when there is a need to
present the message differently based on the <urgency> setting. The
<urgency> value is meant for automated systems and is not initially meant
for the final audience. Any sense of urgency for the final audience should be
handled in the <headline> or <discussion> elements, but since the
<event> element is also meant for the final audience, many alerting
authorities have chosen to add urgency based qualifying terms there.
The intersection of spectrums
becomes important only when trying to compare terms from across spectrums. For
example, if one alert message uses an event term that includes a time
qualifying term at the narrow end of the broad to narrow spectrum, and another
alert message includes an urgency qualifying term at the broad end of the broad
to narrow spectrum, how difficult is it for automated systems to relate the two
terms when they should be related (i.e. an event term like “weather threat” as
compared to “hurricane emergency”).
Furthermore, there are cases
where individual event terms incorporate two spectrum terms (i.e. “fire threat
emergency”), or incorporate an abstract term on its own (i.e. “emergency”).
When this occurs, the terms used are very difficult to compare with other
terms. Again, OASIS has no jurisdiction over such alerting practices leaving that
up to the authorities themselves, but the varied practices do result in a wide
range of terms used making comparisons difficult.
Keeping all of the
discussions in mind, a sub-committee of the EMTC has attempted to compile a reference
list of subject event type terms that alerting authorities and originators can
use or reference in CAP alert messages. The concept of terms being part of a
spectra of terms was established as it factors into the ongoing task of
processing and managing new terms over time. Users of the list will not
necessarily have to be familiar with this spectrum concept, but it will help.
Contributors to the list however will have a better understanding of how their
submission is being treated if they understand the spectrum concept.
A spectrum, in the context
used here, where a grouping of terms is brought together under one defined
range, provides a means of comparing terms. With that, a number of spectrum
concepts arise and are introduced here and discussed below.
For every event term, there
are other related event terms that others may feel are better terms to use.
This is of course a matter of opinion but in a spectrum approach, the EMTC can
show a given term as relatable to other terms, even across the different
spectrums the term is a part of. If a reference term falls onto one or more
broad to narrow spectrums, all terms on those spectra are considered related
terms.
How narrow (or specific) do
event terms need to be? For example, a term for every intensity rating on the
Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF0 tornado to EF5 tornado), each based on the likely
damage expected with a tornado event, could arguably help consumers better
deliver alert messages to their audiences. If an <eventCode> existed for
each narrow term, the audience experience could be enhanced as the narrower
term increases the precision of the message.
In the example given, the
term is actually the code itself (i.e. “EF0”). However, for other scales, such
as a marine scale for wind speeds where a qualifying term is used (i.e. small
craft wind = 15-19 knots, strong wind = 20-33 knots, gales = 34-47 knots,
etc…), the discussion remains relevant.
In such cases however, it is
usually only smaller subset audiences that have a need for such specificity.
The EMTC purposely does not venture into the very narrow edge of the spectrum
feeling that the general public would be better served, as with the first
example, by the event term “tornado”, or in the second example, by the event term
“wind”. For those looking for more specificity of scale, the “Other Lists”
section below offers up a complimentary solution that CAP easily accommodates.
Preferred terms, within a
spectrum of terms, is a matter of opinion. The EMTC will not concern itself
with choosing a preferred term. Alerting authorities are free to choose their
preferred term when considering their audiences. The list however makes it
possible to compare the terms used with other terms preferred by other authorities.
Other language terms are
considered to be in the same spectrum. Spectrums are language independent. If a
term is used in one identified language, and it has an equivalent term in
another identified language, it is a related term. Filters by language can be
used to when working in one language (viewing the list), or when using the list
to translate from one language to another (processing CAP with the help of the
list).
CAP has the facility to house
term references from more than one list in any single CAP message. The
<eventCode> element is a multi-instanced element in CAP, specifically
defined to allow for codes from many different lists to be simultaneously
incorporated into a message. For that reason, the EMTC has decided not to
include terms and codes based on preferences or specificity of scale, leaving
that exercise up to sub-communities of users to define their own list.
Any such community is welcome
to define and publish additional event term codes. Those additional codes, if
necessary, can easily cover the narrow edge of the broad to narrow spectrum.
For an alert message that goes out to a multitude of consumers, serving both
specific and general audiences, an additional event code could convey the
preferred or specific details to subset
audiences and the EMTC code could convey general details to general audiences.
As mentioned in the outset,
the EMTC has developed a list of “event” terms for use in alert messaging
systems. There was no shortage of challenges with this initiative. Determining
how to build and structure the list first meant understanding the bulk of the
problems the list was intended to solve. Also, stewards of the list, as well as
users of the list, would each have their own objectives when working with the
list. Furthermore, how to apply and present the list afterwards to all users
was also difficult since many existing alerting practices are already underway
and had to be accommodated for in the methods chosen.
For users, the EMTC list was
developed to be open-ended. An open-ended approach is considered evergreen –
the resulting material retains its relevance by growing continuously to meet
the needs of a community. For the sub-committee, managing an open-ended
reference list, where new terms can be submitted over time, is possible, but
only when a solid process for upkeep is established. This is possible with the
concept of spectrums.
Secondly, strategies such as
a thesaurus approach emerge. With a thesaurus approach, each term is related to
other similar terms and by selecting one term, other similar or related terms
can be found using the various spectra the term can be found in. The thesaurus
then leads the user down a path where the user can choose for themselves the
best term as they deem appropriate for the situation. Through the spectrum
approach, the EMTC will be able to list related terms for any given reference
term when using a thesaurus.
For consumers of CAP, the <event> element is free form, and
consumer systems should already be accepting free form values for this element.
The terms in the EMTC list should not require any refactoring in those
consuming systems if those terms appear in CAP messages. This of course assumes
consumers use the <event> element for what it was intended – as a display
element only.
Secondly, for consumers that
want more – that want the ability to auto-process and compare event types
across systems and platforms – the EMTC is suggesting an alternative procedure
requiring the cooperation of CAP originators and consumers alike. The EMTC is
asking originators to populate one instance of the <eventCode> element
with a code value from the list – the value that most closely represents the
event type used by the alerting authority. For example, if the alerting
authority has an established event term that closely mirrors an EMTC term, the
following should be placed into any associated CAP message file.
<eventCode>
<valueName>OET:v1.0</valueName>”
<value>OET-537</value> --a coded value for the closest
EMTC event term
</eventCode>
If a term does not closely
resemble any EMTC term, then following is requested.
<eventCode>
<valueName>OET:v1.0</valueName>”
<value>OET-000</value> --a coded value for the EMTC
event term “other event”
</eventCode>
For alerting authorities, if one does not already have their own list, one may
freely use the terms from the EMTC list. If one already has their own event
terms list, the EMTC requests a mapping of those terms to equivalent terms in
the EMTC list by the CAP originator when generating an alert message (as
exampled above). The sub-committee will periodically expand the list and
release updated versions.
Secondly, the EMTC is also
asking authorities to submit terms for inclusion into the list. As mentioned,
the sub-committee will periodically expand the list but will only do so acting
as a custodian for the list rather than the subject matter experts for the
terms on the list. If there is a situation where the “other issue” coded value
is used in a CAP alert message, then the event type used in that message is a
candidate for inclusion on the EMTC list going forward.
The following is the general
procedure used when considering a new term for inclusion into the list.
-
An event term to
be supplied by an interested party
-
The event term to
be associated to one or more CAP categories by the interested party (to set the
broad edge of the spectra of interest)
-
An assessment of
whether it truly is an event term or not
-
A confirmation of
whether it truly fits the Spectrum or not
-
Once accepted the
term will be added to the list
o It will be roughly ordered within the
indicated broad to narrow spectra
o It will be assigned a new EMTC event
terms code if it has no sibling term
o It will be assigned an existing EMTC
event terms code if it has a sibling term
-
All other terms
in the associated spectra will be considered related terms
-
Suggestions for
other language terms will be accepted and added
o Equivalent other language terms will
be considered sibling terms
The sub-committee will only
review the terms as indicated above. For that, we need the help of the
submitting agency - either the alerting authority itself or an agency on behalf
of an alerting authority.
The list below demonstrates
what OASIS will accept…
1)
event terms that
convey a sense of time and space.
2)
event terms that
fall within a broad to narrow spectra of terms.
3)
multiple event
terms in different languages for a single event type.
4)
event terms that
are used to service multiple user communities, regardless of the number of
authorities it affects.
5)
event terms that
are regional event terms (i.e. “monsoon”).
6)
event terms that
are proxy terms (i.e. “AMBER Alert”), if the proxy term is well associated to
an event type.
7)
event terms that
are multi-word terms (i.e. “falling rock”) where the multi-words are needed to
convey the concept of an event.
8)
event terms
that collectively subsume a number of smaller events (i.e. “tropical storm”
which may subsume “wind”, “rain”, “high seas”, “flood”, etc…).
9)
event terms that
are secondary event terms when the secondary event is truly the subject event (e.g.,
“boil water advisory”, “evacuation order” or “AMBER alert”). The secondary
event is what the alerting authority is truly directing the attention of the
audience (for AMBER Alert, that secondary event is the search for the missing
child, as opposed to the original abduction event that triggered the AMBER
Alert).
10)
new mappings to
related terms (i.e., adding terms to other spectrums).
The list below is not a
complete list of ideas applicable to the process of not accepting event terms,
as new ideas may emerge, but the list does demonstrate what OASIS will not
accept…
1)
terms not
associated to an event (i.e., “terrorism).
The term
“terrorism” is not associated to an event, it is an ideology. It could however
be associated to an event with an additional qualifying term that convey a
sense of time and space, such as “active terrorism”. Regardless of whether
such terms are good terms to use or not, the additional word in the examples
creates the notion of possible event type. NOTE: “terrorist incident” is in the
event terms list as an event type, not the ideological concept. NOTE: This explanation
is not necessarily directly applicable in all languages however the intent
still applies.
2)
terms that are
actually alert terms (i.e. “thunderstorm warning”).
The term
“thunderstorm warning” is actually a secondary event term. It is a term that
refers to the act of issuing a warning, not the real or anticipated presence of
a thunderstorm event. Such secondary events are not what the CAP elements,
<severity>, <onset>, etc. were all created address. In this case,
the term “thunderstorm” will suffice. EXCEPTION: Some alert terms are actually
adopted as a way to describe secondary events where the secondary event is
truly the subject event (i.e. AMBER Alert). The term AMBER Alert was chosen to
represent the secondary event of a “coordinated child search”. The term AMBER
Alert was adopted to use the term alert to heighten the awareness of the
secondary event. Over time, it has become a well-known term associated to that
secondary event. It has effectively taken on a meaning of more than just what
the term on its own suggests and therefore is an acceptable event type term.
3)
terms that are
multi-word terms that use a subjective qualifier that only try to classify an
event by scale rather than distinguish the event from another event by its
nature (i.e., “gale force winds” and “hurricane force winds” are derived terms
based on a level marker). However, terms like “chemical fire” and “forest fire”
would each be accepted separately as the nature of the two events are quite
different. Therefore, the terms “gale force wind” and “hurricane force wind”
are considered too narrow for the OASIS event terms list, but the term “wind”
is acceptable. NOTE: Communities, such as marine based communities, are welcome
to establish a set of terms and codes for scale based terms with the
recommendation that the terms be mapped to the closest OASIS term (and
associated event code), and include a reference to the OASIS event code in one
instance of the multi-instanced CAP <eventCode> element.
4)
terms that are
multi-word terms where the subjective qualifier is scale based but not
necessarily tied to a known level marker from the perspective of the intended
audience. For example, “severe thunderstorm”, which has an implied level marker
based on the word “severe” but by its use only implies an event more hazardous
than normal”. Therefore, the term “severe thunderstorm” is considered too
narrow for the OASIS event terms list, but the term “thunderstorm” is
acceptable. NOTE: Communities, such as meteorological based communities, are
welcome to establish a set of terms and codes for scale based terms with the
recommendation that the terms be mapped to the closest OASIS term (and
associated event code), and include a reference to the OASIS event code in one
instance of the multi-instanced CAP <eventCode> element.
5)
accept proxy
terms that are otherwise not event terms (i.e., “Red”).
Red is not an
event on its own, it is a quality. “Red” may be used by the authority in the
<headline>, <description>, <parameter> or other elements as
an alerting authority based preferred term but as an event these terms do not
convey the idea of an event. Multi-word terms that try to make an event out of
a proxy event (i.e., “red event”) are also not accepted. Turning the proxy
event into an event in this manner provides no context to the term event.
The following individuals have participated in the creation
of this specification and are gratefully acknowledged:
Participants:
Alagna, Michael IJIS
Institute
Beavin, Mr. William The
Boeing Company
Bredenberg, Mr. Patrick Oracle
Bui, Dr. Thomas The
Boeing Company
Calabrese, Stefano Presidenza
del Consiglio dei Ministri - Dipartimento della Protezione Civile
Casanave, Cory Object
Management Group
Chiesa, Mr. Chris Pacific
Disaster Center
Chown, Bill Siemens
AG
Clark, James Bryce OASIS
Considine, Toby University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Cox, William Individual
Denning, Paul Mitre
Corporation
Devanesan, Ms. Ruha Google
Inc.
Dominguez, Mr. Alain Ministere
de L'Interieur-France
Embley, Mr. Paul National
Center for State Courts
Ensign, Mr. Chet OASIS
Ferguson, James Kaiser
Permanente
Ferrentino, Thomas Individual
Gerber, Mike NOAA/NWS
Gustafson, Mr. Robert Mitre
Corporation
Hakusa, Mr. Steve Google
Inc.
Hardy, Dr. Andrea NOAA/NWS
Kenyon, Alfred DHS
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C)
Laughren, Ms. Emily Mitre
Corporation
Leinenweber, Lewis Open
Geospatial Consortium, Inc. (OGC)
Lucero, Mr. Mark DHS
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C)
McKeeman, Mr. Neil University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Merkle, Mr. Thomas DHS
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C)
Myhre, Mr. Joel Pacific
Disaster Center
Paulsen, Norm Environment
Canada
Percivall, Mr. George Open
Geospatial Consortium, Inc. (OGC)
Riga, Mr. Thomas Google
Inc.
Rosini, Mr. Umberto Presidenza
del Consiglio dei Ministri - Dipartimento della Protezione Civile
Roy, Donna DHS
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C)
Schaffhauser, Andreas EUMETNET
Schur, Mrs. Dee OASIS
Streetman, Mr. Steve DHS
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C)
Waters, Jeff US
Department of Defense (DoD)
Webber, Mr. David Huawei
Technologies Co., Ltd.
Westfall, Jacob Individual
White, Mr. Herbert NOAA/NWS
Wilkins, Mr. Brian Mitre
Corporation
Brooks, Rex Individual
Ham, Mr. Gary Individual
Jones, Mrs. Elysa Individual
Paulsen, Norm EnvironmentCanada
Robertson, Dr. Scott Kaiser
Permanente
Weber, Ms. Sabrina IEM
The OASIS event
code value is for use in the cap.alertInfo.eventCode.value element
Note: “OET”
represents “OASIS Event Term”
The version of
the OASIS Event Terms list that the OASIS event code is taken from is indicated
in the cap.alertInfo.eventCode.valueName element.
Note: It is of
the form "OET:m.n", where "m.n" is the
major.minor version of this document.
The OASIS event
term is for use in the cap.alertInfo.event element
Note: The OASIS
Event Term is supporting material for comparison purposes and for systems that
have no Event term list.
The
"Grouping" column is used to indicate other CAP Event terms which are
related.
Note:
Most often, the grouping term is a broad grouping term on the broad to narrow
spectrum, where the term on the row is a more specific term on the same
spectrum. The Grouping term can lead to other related terms if the given Event
term "doesn't quite fit" the situation.
The CAP
Category Code(s) value is for use in the cap.alertInfo.category element
Note: The
"CAP Category Code(s)" column, lists the known CAP Categories the
OASIS Event term is associated, and OASIS recommends all values listed should
be included in the multi-instanced cap.alertInfo.category element in a CAP
message.
|
OASIS Event Code
|
OASIS CAP Event Term
|
Grouping
|
CAP Category Code(s)
|
|
OET-000
|
other
event
|
other
|
Other
|
|
OET-001
|
active
shooter situation
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety;
Security
|
|
OET-002
|
administrative
activity
|
testing
& system activity
|
Other
|
|
OET-003
|
air hazard
|
aviation
hazard
|
Meteorological;
Transport
|
|
OET-004
|
air
quality
|
health
hazard
|
Environmental;
Health
|
|
OET-005
|
air search
|
safety hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-006
|
air
stagnation
|
air
hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-007
|
aircraft
crash
|
aviation
hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-008
|
aircraft
incident
|
aviation
hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-009
|
airport
closure
|
aviation
hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-010
|
airspace
closure
|
aviation
hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-011
|
airspace
restriction
|
aviation
hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-012
|
ambulance
|
health
issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-013
|
animal
disease
|
health issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-014
|
animal
feed
|
health
issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-015
|
animal health
|
health issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-016
|
arctic
outflow
|
temperature
hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-017
|
ashfall
|
air hazard;
marine; aviation
|
Geological;
Health; Meteorological; Safety; Transport
|
|
OET-018
|
avalanche
|
|
Geological
|
|
OET-019
|
aviation
hazard
|
aviation
hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-020
|
aviation
security
|
aviation
hazard
|
Transport;
Security
|
|
OET-021
|
beach hazard
|
marine
|
Safety
|
|
OET-022
|
biological
|
biological
hazard
|
CBRNE
|
|
OET-023
|
blizzard
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-024
|
blood
supply
|
health
issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-025
|
blowing dust
|
air hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-026
|
blowing
snow
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-027
|
blue-green
algae
|
water hazard
|
Environmental
|
|
OET-028
|
bomb
threat
|
criminal
activity
|
CBRNE
|
|
OET-029
|
bridge
closure
|
road hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-030
|
bridge
collapse
|
road
hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-031
|
building
collapse
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-032
|
building
structure hazard
|
earthquake
|
Geological
|
|
OET-033
|
bush fire
|
fire
|
Fire
|
|
OET-034
|
cable
service issue
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-035
|
canal
|
utility issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-036
|
chemical
fire
|
fire
|
CBRNE;
Fire
|
|
OET-037
|
chemical
hazard
|
|
CBRNE
|
|
OET-038
|
child
abduction
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety;
Security
|
|
OET-039
|
civil
|
civil issue
|
Security
|
|
OET-040
|
civil
protest
|
civil
issue
|
Safety
|
|
OET-041
|
coal gas
|
utility issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-042
|
coastal
flood
|
flood
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-043
|
cold
|
temperature
hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-044
|
cold
weather
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-045
|
communications
service disruption
|
utility issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-046
|
contagious
disease
|
health
hazard
|
Health
|
|
OET-047
|
contaminated
water
|
health hazard
|
Health
|
|
OET-048
|
contamination
|
|
CBRNE;
Health
|
|
OET-049
|
criminal
activity
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety
|
|
OET-050
|
cybercrime
threat
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety;
Security
|
|
OET-051
|
cyclone
|
tropical
storm
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-052
|
dam
break
|
flood
|
Geological;
Meteorological
|
|
OET-053
|
dam issue
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-054
|
dangerous
animal
|
civil
issue
|
Safety
|
|
OET-055
|
dangerous
person threat
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety
|
|
OET-056
|
debris
flow
|
geophysical
|
Geological
|
|
OET-057
|
demonstration
|
testing &
system activity
|
Other
|
|
OET-058
|
dense
fog
|
air
hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-059
|
dense smoke
|
air hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-060
|
diesel
fuel issue
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-061
|
disease
|
health issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-062
|
disease
outbreak
|
health
issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-063
|
drought
|
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-064
|
drug
safety
|
public
health
|
Health
|
|
OET-065
|
drug supply
|
public health
|
Health
|
|
OET-066
|
dust
storm
|
air
hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-067
|
dyke break
|
flood
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-068
|
earthquake
|
earthquake
|
Geological
|
|
OET-069
|
electronic
infrastructure
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-070
|
emergency
responder incident
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety
|
|
OET-071
|
emergency
responder threat
|
criminal activity
|
Safety
|
|
OET-072
|
emergency
support facilities incident
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-073
|
emergency
support services incident
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-074
|
emergency
telephone outage
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-075
|
environmental
issue
|
environment
|
Environmental
|
|
OET-076
|
explosion
threat
|
civil
issue
|
CBRNE
|
|
OET-077
|
falling
object
|
safety hazard
|
Safety
|
|
OET-078
|
fire
|
fire
|
Fire
|
|
OET-079
|
flash flood
|
flood
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-080
|
flash
freeze
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-081
|
flood
|
flood
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-082
|
fog
|
air
hazard; winter weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-083
|
food
contamination
|
biological
hazard
|
Health
|
|
OET-084
|
food
safety
|
public
health
|
Health
|
|
OET-085
|
food supply
|
public health
|
Health
|
|
OET-086
|
forest
fire
|
fire
|
Fire
|
|
OET-087
|
freeze
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-088
|
freezing
drizzle
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-089
|
freezing rain
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-090
|
freezing
spray
|
winter
weather; marine
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-091
|
frost
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-092
|
fuel
issue
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-093
|
geophysical
issue
|
geological
|
Geological
|
|
OET-094
|
grass
fire
|
fire
|
Fire
|
|
OET-095
|
hail
|
severe
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-096
|
hazardous
seas
|
marine
|
Transport
|
|
OET-097
|
health issue
|
health issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-098
|
heat
|
temperature
hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-099
|
heating oil
issue
|
utility issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-100
|
high
seas
|
marine
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-101
|
high surf
|
marine
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-102
|
high
tide
|
marine
|
Transport
|
|
OET-103
|
high water
|
utility
issue; marine
|
Infrastructure;
Transport
|
|
OET-104
|
home
crime
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety
|
|
OET-105
|
humidity
issue
|
temperature
hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-106
|
hurricane
|
tropical
storm; tropical cyclone
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-107
|
ice
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-108
|
ice
pressure issue
|
ice
issue
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-109
|
ice storm
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-110
|
iceberg
|
ice
issue
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-111
|
industrial
crime
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety
|
|
OET-112
|
industrial
facility
|
safety
hazard
|
Safety
|
|
OET-113
|
industrial
fire
|
fire
|
Fire
|
|
OET-114
|
infrastructure
|
infrastructure
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-115
|
internet
service
|
utility issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-116
|
lake
effect snow
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-117
|
lake wind
|
air hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-118
|
landline
service
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-119
|
landslide
|
geophysical
|
Geological
|
|
OET-120
|
law
enforcement
|
civil
issue
|
Security
|
|
OET-121
|
levee break
|
flood
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-122
|
lightning
|
thunderstorm;
severe weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-123
|
limited
visibility
|
air hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-124
|
low
tide
|
marine
|
Transport
|
|
OET-125
|
low water
|
utility
issue; marine
|
Infrastructure;
Transport
|
|
OET-126
|
low
water pressure
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-127
|
meteoroid
|
space
|
Transport
|
|
OET-128
|
meteorological
issue
|
meteorological
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-129
|
missile
threat
|
national
hazard
|
CBRNE
|
|
OET-130
|
missing
person(s)
|
safety
hazard
|
Safety
|
|
OET-131
|
mobile communication
|
utility issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-132
|
monsoon
|
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-133
|
mudslide
|
geophysical
|
Geological
|
|
OET-134
|
natural
gas
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-135
|
network
message notification
|
testing &
system activity
|
Other
|
|
OET-136
|
nuclear
power plant
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure;
CBRNE
|
|
OET-137
|
oil leak
|
beach hazard,
environmental
|
Environmental
|
|
OET-138
|
oil
spill
|
beach
hazard, environmental
|
Environmental
|
|
OET-139
|
over water
search
|
search
|
Rescue
|
|
OET-140
|
overland
flood
|
flood
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-141
|
overland
search
|
search
|
Rescue
|
|
OET-142
|
pipeline
rupture
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-143
|
plant health
issue
|
health issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-144
|
potable
water
|
utility
issue; water hazard
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-145
|
power outage
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-146
|
power
utility
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-147
|
practice
|
testing &
system activity
|
Other
|
|
OET-148
|
product
safety
|
safety
hazard
|
Safety
|
|
OET-149
|
public
facility
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-150
|
public
health
|
health
issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-151
|
public
service issue
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-152
|
public
transit issue
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Transport
|
|
OET-153
|
pyroclastic
flow
|
volcano
hazard
|
Geological
|
|
OET-154
|
radiation
|
radiological
hazard
|
CBRNE
|
|
OET-155
|
radio
transmitter
|
safety hazard
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-156
|
radioactive
material release
|
radiological
hazard
|
CBRNE
|
|
OET-157
|
radiological
fire
|
fire
|
CBRNE; Fire
|
|
OET-158
|
railway
issue
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Transport
|
|
OET-159
|
rain
|
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-160
|
rapid
ice closing of water passage
|
ice
issue
|
Transport
|
|
OET-161
|
red tide
|
health issue;
marine issue
|
Health
|
|
OET-162
|
rescue
|
rescue
|
Rescue
|
|
OET-163
|
retail crime issue
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety
|
|
OET-164
|
rip
current issue
|
beach
hazard
|
Safety
|
|
OET-165
|
road closure
|
road hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-166
|
road
issue
|
road
hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-167
|
road vehicle
accident
|
road hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-168
|
rogue
waves
|
marine
|
Geological
|
|
OET-169
|
safety
|
safety hazard
|
Safety
|
|
OET-170
|
sandstorm
|
air
hazard; weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-171
|
satellite
debris
|
space
|
Other
|
|
OET-172
|
satellite
service
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-173
|
school bus
issue
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Transport
|
|
OET-174
|
school
closing
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-175
|
school
lockdown
|
infrastructure
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-176
|
search
event
|
search
|
Rescue
|
|
OET-177
|
security
|
security
|
Security
|
|
OET-178
|
sewer
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-179
|
shoreline
threat
|
beach hazard
|
Safety
|
|
OET-180
|
sinkhole
|
safety
hazard
|
Safety
|
|
OET-181
|
sleet
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-182
|
snow
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-183
|
snowstorm
|
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-184
|
space
debris
|
space
|
Other
|
|
OET-185
|
space weather
|
space
|
Other
|
|
OET-186
|
squall
|
weather;
marine
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-187
|
storm
|
weather;
marine
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-188
|
storm
drain
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-189
|
storm surge
|
weather;
flood
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-190
|
structure
fire
|
fire
|
Fire
|
|
OET-191
|
swells
|
marine
|
Safety;
Transport
|
|
OET-192
|
telephone
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-193
|
terrorist
incident
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety
|
|
OET-194
|
thunderstorm
|
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-195
|
tornadic
waterspout
|
severe
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-196
|
tornado
|
severe
weather; tornado
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-197
|
toxic plume
|
contamination
hazard
|
CBRNE
|
|
OET-198
|
toxic
spill
|
contamination
hazard
|
CBRNE
|
|
OET-199
|
traffic
|
road hazard
|
Transport
|
|
OET-200
|
transportation
|
transport
|
Transport
|
|
OET-201
|
tropical
depression
|
tropical
storm; tropical cyclone
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-202
|
tropical
storm
|
weather;
tropical cyclone
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-203
|
tsunami
|
marine
|
Geological
|
|
OET-204
|
typhoon
|
tropical
cyclone
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-205
|
ultraviolet
|
safety
|
Safety
|
|
OET-206
|
utility
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-207
|
vehicle crime
|
criminal
activity
|
Safety
|
|
OET-208
|
volcanic
activity
|
volcano
hazard
|
Geological
|
|
OET-209
|
volcanic
eruption
|
volcano
hazard
|
Geological
|
|
OET-210
|
volcanic
lahar
|
volcano
hazard
|
Geological
|
|
OET-211
|
volcanic lava
|
volcano
hazard
|
Geological
|
|
OET-212
|
waste
management
|
utility
issue
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-213
|
water
|
utility
issue; water hazard
|
Geological;
Transport
|
|
OET-214
|
water
main break
|
utility
issue; water hazard
|
Infrastructure
|
|
OET-215
|
waterspout
|
marine
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-216
|
weather
|
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-217
|
wildfire
|
fire
|
Fire
|
|
OET-218
|
wind
|
air
hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-219
|
wind change
|
air hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-220
|
wind
chill
|
temperature
hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-221
|
wind shear
|
air hazard
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-222
|
winter
storm
|
winter
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
OET-223
|
winter
weather
|
weather
|
Meteorological
|
|
Revision
|
Date
|
Editor
|
Changes Made
|
|
02
|
09-23-2020
|
Scott Robertson
|
Appendix A Acknowledgments added
Appendix B Event Terms. added
Appendix C Revision History added
First Complete Draft
|
|
03
|
10-28-2020
|
Rex Brooks
|
First Complete Edited Draft
|
