[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey
Hi Len, I'd love to give you the whole playbook now but we just don't have all the answers worked out yet. Having said that, let me take a stab at some of your questions: On rollout timeframes - we have at least 6 months of piloting ahead of us. We plan on progressing from NIEM 0.1 up to NIEM 1.0 with NIEM 1.0 being a public release. While I hope we can get to NIEM 1.0 in 6-9 months, it depends on the success of the pilots and feedback we receive. On NIEM Modules - We are currently looking at three horizontal layers - NIEM Core = (Universal Core and Common Core). 1. Universal Core - crosses all domains (small). All NIEM participants agree to implement. 2. Common Core - any two intersecting domains. Types that require reconciliation. 3. Domain Specific. Self explanatory. At this time those are the modules. At this time there are no vertical slices planned but we are open to suggestions. We are still working on the NIEM CONOPS and will look forward to this group's feedback when we it is released (our internal vetting on this ends at the end of the month). As for RFPs, I suspect agencies will write into the language a requirement to support a specific version of NIEM (possibly subsetting to specific modules but maybe not as this would require some technical knowledge) that is applicable to their line of business. Hope that helps - we look forward to continued collaboration with this group. Regards, Michael C. Daconta Metadata Program Manager Department of Homeland Security tel: (202)692-4340 email: michael.daconta@dhs.gov -----Original Message----- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:41 PM To: 'Daconta, Michael'; Rex Brooks; Emergency_Mgt_TC Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey How do you forsee the NIEM modules becoming requirements in the RFPs, and what kind of rollout time would you think credible? Is there an order of precedence for the modules? This is good information to relay to our Product Planning staff. Thanks much. len -----Original Message----- From: Daconta, Michael [mailto:Michael.Daconta@dhs.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:37 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); Rex Brooks; Emergency_Mgt_TC Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey Here are some clarifications for the group's benefit... 1. The FEA DRM is distinct from NIEM and GJXDM. 2. We agree that simplicity is important which is why NIEM (of which GJXDM forms the initial baseline) is taking a modular approach. NIEM 0.1 will include a key subset called "universal core". We are internally vetting the universal core now. After internal vetting, we will release it for public vetting (same as we are doing with the DRM). 3. We are piloting NIEM concepts before we release to insure that the approach is solid. Regards, Michael C. Daconta Metadata Program Manager Department of Homeland Security tel: (202)692-4340 email: michael.daconta@dhs.gov -----Original Message----- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:51 AM To: 'Rex Brooks'; Emergency_Mgt_TC Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey Ok. Here is the other view: As I sit here looking through the DRM, I am lightly convinced that the chances the public safety industry will be implementing this soon are functionally zero. The problem of any top down design is the bottom up legacy that ensures that no clean break can ever be made given an active procurement cycle. No one starts from scratch and the active legacy is much more important to the agency than Federal mandates. Changing a tire on a moving car in an intersection is dangerous work. GJXDM as a big honking piece of middleware for bits on the wire is possible. It isn't likely that the relational system schemas will be changed to match the unwieldy and verbose GJ elements: 1. Not a good design for relational systems. Performance requirements for queries typically range from one to four seconds for a query of medium complexity. These designs favor too much standalone context. 2. It is too disruptive to unhorse all of the current systems to convert their data. 3. RDF is a non-starter. Show us the commercial frameworks (say operating systems and programming frameworks with more than 10% of the market) that support it today because even if supported today, there is about a three to five year gap to fielding of robust, secure, reliable products. 4. IEPs are a good idea but every agency we deal with has its own reports, some State mandated, some agency mandated, some JIT ad hoc. How many years are given for any local agency to convert to the IEPs (keep in mind how many states are still UCR despite NIBRS)? At some point, DHS and DoJ are going to realize that there isn't enough funding to get this done and they will vastly simplify the requirements. The Federal budget is strained and there is no end in sight to the Executive-initiated events that are draining resources. A roll-out plan that confronts the reality of the procurement and legacy issues is needed. It will have to be much simpler because submarining these languages in by reference to GJXDM means that the vendors and procurement officials will waive the bulk of GJXDM in favor of the 'most useful' subset as determined by the local agency. len From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] Hi Len, CAP is now included in GJXDM, so RFPs contingent on the GJXDM are also axiomatically contingent on CAP compliance within GJXDM, if required. DHS will likely stipulate CAP in its applicable RFPs. the Public Forum for the Data Reference Model yesterday included CAP because it was part of the pilot we (Starbourne) will be doing for the Semantic Interoperability Architecture effort for September. I will keep this group apprised of that work as it proceeds. EDXL is likely to be a key piece of NIMS as it gets built out. We are hammering on the Distribution Element again today. Ciao, Rex At 8:39 AM -0500 6/14/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >Something to chew on. This week I received >a COMCARE survey for information on EDXL/CAP >implementations, customers, populations served, etc. >I have to reply that as of this time, we have >no information about that to be released. > >As mentioned previously, public safety is an >RFP-driven business. Requirements that don't >show up in at least three separate RFPs aren't >likely to be implemented soon if ever. How >is this group and its supporters in government >working to see to it that these specifications >and standards are introduced commercially to >the public safety industry through procurement >processes? > >Are there papers that explicitly illustrate where >these standards fit into the product mix that an >agency would be acquiring when purchasing say >Dispatch, police, fire and EMT records systems? > >Who declares a situation that would result in >an EDXL/CAP message being broadcast? Who receives >it and under what jurisdiction? > >We've discussed some of these topics briefly in the >past, but I think that before we will see these >standards in more than one or two very large >procurements, the procurement officials need help >with the requirements language. I see mentions of >GJXDM but little of EDXL/CAP. > >len > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS >at: >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-849-2309 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]