RE: [emergency] FW: [legalxml-intjustice] GJXDM subset schema example and documen tation

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

It's a bit harsher than that:  it attempts to push down 
from the top a language into domains that are by design, 
compartmentalized.    Each jurisdiction has its own 
dialect with overlaps.  UCR and NIBRS are the 
closest they have to a common dialect and there are 
substantial variants in these down to the local agency 
levels.  Global Justice attempt to use UCR and NIBRS. 
The problem is that there is no such thing as global 
law, so global justice is a bit of a stretch.

But, those are statistical reporting languages, 
not operational languages.  The local agency reports to 
the state, the state to the Feds, and so on.  The systems 
that gather the information for this reporting are based 
on the core UCR, a NIBRS add-in where required, and local 
variations.  At each level of reporting, the information is 
folded and stripped, so as a means to mine data for 
individuals or groups, it is fairly worthless.  In short, 
once outside the dispatch systems, a majority of the 
information these systems gather and maintain falls into 
the categories of organizational reporting (management) 
and statistical reporting (management), not operational. 
There is some operational data, but it does not dominate.

The global justice specs are showing up in RFPs. CAP hasn't 
yet.   There is clearly more to standardization because 
not only implementors, but the procurement food chain 
and the operations food chain have to be satisfied. 
To their credit, the Global Justice initiatives  
have most of the heavy vendor players in the public 
safety industy as members.   The problem is the customers.
It is a CALS redux.  USDOJ wants this; the locals may or 
may not.
 
They have systems that work and won't move forward until 
they can procure systems based on specifications that 
are reliable and in widespread use (chicken and egg), 
thus, really standard.   Global Justice can be applied 
today to external communications and archival.  As a database 
schema, the implementors disagree, so one doesn't find 
many systems that use it for that although there have 
been some attempts.   The value of the system 
is not in the schema; it is in the business rules 
and the ability of the vendor to localize those.

Anyway, you might want to adjust your concepts to 
differentiate specifications and standards.  CAP 
and Global Justice are specifications for systems 
groups want to create.  NIBRS and UCR are standards 
for systems that do exist and are in widespread use. 
It isn't smart to bet the farm on a specification.
It is smart to develop them as affordable.  I'd say 
you definitely want CAP to be part of Global Justice.

len


From: R. Allen Wyke [mailto:emergency-tc@earthlink.net]

On Feb 25, 2004, at 5:01 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> GTRI has posted documentation for constructing subset schemas on their
> web site at:
>
> http://justicexml.gtri.gatech.edu/technical/schema-subset-rules/ 
> index.html

I have to admit, this kinda makes me laugh, because it is a case  
example of where, not unlike some of the comments we have had on CAP,  
groups sometimes think a schema represents 100% of a "standard". It  
takes a lot more than the schema to accurately and in an unambiguous  
way describe the intent of an effort in a way that implementers can  
understand.

As a lessoned learned, this is validation that ALL of our work needs to  
reflect clarity in the normative language we use as well as cohesion  
and an accurate reflection within the schema - both supported by usage  
language.

> In addition, OJP has released an example subset schema for Amber Alerts
> at:
>
> http://it.ojp.gov/jsr/public/viewDetail.jsp?sub_id=204

This is interesting, because while it may look nothing like CAP, there  
would definitely be a perceived (aka non-technical) domain overlap. It  
might not be a bad idea for us, as a group, to review their spec and  
provide comments back. Thoughts?