[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey
Because that's what fish like and there are only so many loaves. Sort out the worms and feed the people. :-) I agree on how vendors see this. We see RFPs. Everything starts there, or at least that was the pre Sept 11 world. Now we all realize that interoperability is not a nice to have but a got to have. We get that down to our socks, but the first order of business is to respond with proposals. The language spoken here must be reflected there or nothing will happen. The NIEM component mapping process appears to me to be a great sieve and means to converge the parallel efforts. What comes out of that should be citable. *Easy citations to crystal clear requirements makes it possible to check mark. That is exactly the way this should work because then we can reply with a) product price or b) development price or c) implementation price. The RFP world of public safety is a fixed price world: do it for the quoted $ or lose money. That makes the bids very competitive and the pricing pressures intense. If it helps, we do get inquiries from agencies about this work. We know we must implement on-the-wire GJXDM regional systems. CAD-to-CAD we can do now if the APCO specs are followed. There are court system vendors such as New Dawn that have court systems based on GJXDM. EDXL isn't finished, but that solves another piece of the puzzle. The NIEM component maps and the IEPs get down to the nitty gritty of inter/intra justice system communications. So it is a scheduling and resource issue. We are creating product plans based on the perceptions of which standards are important, the order of implementation, and the customer change requests. Even if not very exciting, I want to bring a procurement flavor to the discussion to increase the chances of getting systems to the street sooner. A procurement story gets into the hands of the Gartner-like groups and then the RFPs. From that point forward, just like igniting a solid rocket, the beastie is certain to move. If I had my way, Intergraph would blog just like Microsoft and Sun, and we would have a real time conversation going with the customers and their customers. Then representation here would be much more efficient. Blogging is something I encourage here, there and everywhere. len -----Original Message----- From: Paul Embley [mailto:PEmbley@ghinternational.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:27 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); Daconta, Michael; Emergency_Mgt_TC Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey Boy Len, you really like to open those cans labeled "worms." The short answer is that if people will follow the recommendations, there is recommended RFP language which tells writers how to reference the GJXDM work. That said, most still think that "GJXDM Compliance" is just a checkbox that a purchasing agent can check off. We rely on outreach and especially the vendors to educate the community on how to ask for an XML "standard" (GJXDM, CAP, EDXL, etc.) in an RFP. Mike and I are working quite closely together on the NIEM. Eventually we see the Criminal Justice and Public Safety space being just another component of NIEM. Hope this answers the questions. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com] Sent: Tue 6/14/2005 4:17 PM To: Paul Embley; Daconta, Michael; Emergency_Mgt_TC Cc: Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey Thanks, Paul. That's helpful. The CAD work we are familiar with and have products (InterCAD) to address. What will be most useful will be references to the IEPs and some SWAG as to completion. Can I assume that a URI reference to the online documentation will eventually be cited in the RFPs? Are these separate efforts under the NIEMs umbrella to ensure convergence? Is the NIEM Component Mapping process being applied? len -----Original Message----- From: Paul Embley [mailto:PEmbley@ghinternational.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:12 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); Daconta, Michael; Emergency_Mgt_TC Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey Many of these are already being worked on. If any of you would like contacts in a specific area, let me know. Here is how the responsibilities have been broken out: Law Enforcement - SEARCH Courts - National Center for State Courts Prosecutor - IJIS Institute Corrections - Corrections Technology Association/National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center CAD - beginning work with NENA & APCO Fire - TBD There is a lot of overlap between all the different disciplines, so in many instances there is strong collaboration. I'll make sure that the list you put together gets to the right people. If it is of value to the group, I can post the IEP's that are in process. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com] Sent: Tue 6/14/2005 3:36 PM To: 'Daconta, Michael'; Emergency_Mgt_TC Cc: Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey It will be helpful if these are broken out in accordance with the divisions in the public safety justice systems, for example, police records to court records to corrections records. By slicing along the organizational lines, the relationships of the modules and subsets to the operational aspects of the justice agencies are clearer, and therefore, easily related to the breakout in an RFP. For example, (and very high level), a court system may want to exchange IEPs related to: o Case status updates o Name information (including related names such as family, contacts, aliases, etc.) and mugshots/fingerprints (demographic data plus binary attachments) o Custody status o Disposition information (usually sent to State and local warehouses) o Exchange events, sentencing, and disposition to courts. o Contacts (eg, officers, prosecutors, defenders, judges, court and corrections officials, probation and parole) since arrest o Sentencing data That's a very basic list and well-within the boundaries of what court systems share today. If the modules are related to IEPs and IEPs are exchanged in accordance with the business rules of the local and state agencies, the business rules might be set at the web service and these are the message payloads extracted from the GJXDM as IEPs. While I know there is no playlist yet, a playlist that can be factored to the RFPs would be that set of IEPs corresponding to the basic exchanges that the agencies need immediately. Would you envision the vendor working these out with the agency, or the agencies working these out and then requiring them of the vendor, or some mixture? Note that it is the high amount of local customization for each state and agency that keeps costs high given implementations even over customizable systems. So, (obviously) convincing States to convince Agencies to share IEPs (particularly statute codelists) has big payoffs. len From: Daconta, Michael [mailto:Michael.Daconta@dhs.gov] 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]