docs: response taxonomy working document v0.2

.github/prompts/research-response-taxonomy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# Plan: Research Response/Action Taxonomies (issue #12)
+
+## Context
+
+This task addresses [developmentseed/esa-montandon#12](https://github.com/developmentseed/esa-montandon/issues/12), a sub-issue of the epic [#7](https://github.com/developmentseed/esa-montandon/issues/7) — "Define and implement the Response data model in the Monty STAC extension". The work is part of the ESA contract (issue-one#39) to integrate EO-based response products (Charter Mapper, CEMS, UNOSAT) into Montandon.
+
+The Monty STAC extension currently has Hazard and Impact fully defined, but Response is empty (only `ID_linkage`, no taxonomy, no STAC fields). Before designing the Response STAC fields, we need a grounded taxonomy. This deliverable (D1.1) is due at KO+4m (July 2026).
+
+**Key design constraints (from Epic #7):**
+
+- Response items will be separate STAC items linked via `monty:corr_id`
+- Taxonomy must be open/extensible; EO types go in first
+- Anticipatory actions are out of scope but the model must not preclude them
+- Response = action taken / product produced (not the impact itself)
+
+## Deliverable
+
+Create `docs/model/response-taxonomy.md` in the `IFRCGo/monty-stac-extension` repository, published via PR on a new branch. This is an iterative working document — first iteration covers the framework survey and selection rationale.
+
+## Implementation Steps
+
+### Step 1 — Framework research (web search per framework)
+
+Fetch and summarise each of the 7 candidate frameworks listed in issue #12:
+
+| Framework | What to capture |
+| --- | --- |
+| **OCHA 3W/4W** | Activity category list used in Who-does-What-Where-When tracking |
+| **Sendai Framework monitoring** | Indicator categories for response/recovery actions (Targets E/F/G) |
+| **IFRC EPoA / DREF** | Standard response sectors (shelter, health, WASH, livelihoods, protection, cash, etc.) |
+| **IASC Cluster system** | 11 clusters + their sub-sectors |
+| **International Charter** | Activation types, product types (Reference Map, Delineation, Grading) |
+| **CEMS rapid mapping** | First Estimate Product, Delineation, Grading, Reference Product |
+| **PDNA framework (WB/EU/UN)** | Post-disaster needs assessment sector categories |
+
+For each: capture category hierarchy depth, whether machine-readable codes exist, and how well it maps to the Monty use-case (EO products + humanitarian response data).
+
+### Step 2 — Selection and crosswalk analysis
+
+After surveying all frameworks, assess them against Monty-specific criteria:
+
+- **Coverage**: Does it address EO products? Humanitarian sectors? Financial response?
+- **Hierarchy depth**: Is it flat, 2-level, 3-level?
+- **Code availability**: Are there existing stable codes we can reuse or crosswalk?
+- **Adoption**: Is it actively used in data systems we ingest (CEMS, Charter, IFRC GO)?
+- **Extensibility**: Can the structure accommodate future response types (anticipatory action, PDNA)?
+
+Produce a crosswalk summary table mapping concepts across frameworks, and a shortlist of frameworks to adopt vs. reference only.
+
+### Step 3 — Taxonomy structure recommendation
+
+Based on the analysis, propose and justify:
+
+- **Hierarchy**: flat list vs. group → type (2-level) vs. deeper — mirroring the hazard taxonomy if appropriate
+- **Code format**: informed by which frameworks contribute codes and whether crosswalk IDs are needed
+- **Scope boundary**: what counts as "Response" vs. "Impact" in Monty's model
+
+This section will likely require iteration and review with the team before finalising codes.
+
+### Step 4 — Proposed initial response type codes
+
+Only after the structure is validated, propose the initial code list, prioritising:
+
+1. EO response products (Charter, CEMS, UNOSAT) — first entries per Epic #7
+2. Humanitarian placeholder groups — to be expanded in future issues
+
+### Step 5 — Publish working document
+
+- Branch: `feat/response-taxonomy`
+- File: `docs/model/response-taxonomy.md`
+- PR to `IFRCGo/monty-stac-extension` main
+- Reference developmentseed/esa-montandon#12 in PR description
+- Mark clearly as "working document / first iteration" — codes in Step 4 are proposals pending team review
+
+## Document Structure
+
+```markdown
+# Response Taxonomy (Working Document — v0.1)
+
+## 1. Purpose and Scope
+
+## 2. Framework Survey
+   ### 2.1 OCHA 3W/4W
+   ### 2.2 Sendai Framework
+   ### 2.3 IFRC EPoA / DREF
+   ### 2.4 IASC Cluster System
+   ### 2.5 International Charter
+   ### 2.6 Copernicus EMS (CEMS)
+   ### 2.7 PDNA Framework
+   ### 2.8 Crosswalk Summary & Selection Rationale
+
+## 3. Taxonomy Design Recommendation
+   - Chosen structure + justification
+   - Code format proposal (derived from analysis)
+   - Scope boundary definition
+
+## 4. Proposed Response Type Codes (EO-first)
+   - EO response products
+   - Humanitarian placeholder groups
+
+## 5. Open Questions & Next Steps
+```
+
+## Critical Files
+
+| File | Role |
+| --- | --- |
+| [docs/model/taxonomy.md](docs/model/taxonomy.md) | Existing hazard + impact taxonomy — format and code convention reference |
+| [docs/model/README.md](docs/model/README.md) | Model overview — Response class currently empty |
+| [README.md](README.md) | STAC extension spec — Response section marked "still needs to be defined" |
+
+## Verification
+
+1. All 7 frameworks surveyed with category lists and applicability notes
+2. Crosswalk table covers all frameworks, identifying overlaps and gaps
+3. Selection rationale documented (which frameworks inform the taxonomy and why)
+4. Taxonomy structure recommendation justified with comparison of alternatives
+5. Initial EO code proposals flow logically from the analysis (not assumed upfront)
+6. Document accepted as working document in `docs/model/` and referenced from the PR