OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL/CAP Survey

Happy to see another vendor speak up, Winnie.

Middleware used to push information to and out of silo'd 
systems is exactly what we and other vendors are implementing. 
GJXDM for up/down translation is fine.  However, if by reference 
it includes multiple vocabularies unrelated directly to the records 
management systems (eg, police and fire records), then a smart 
vendor takes exception because that constrains the development 
contractually in areas that are either not ready for prime time 
or too far in design from the systems that have to be integrated.

Sharing data through standardized schemas is fine.  However, the 
mission critical systems are real time: start with the dispatch 
systems.  That is the critical point of failure.  For example, 
does DHS or DoJ consider the IEP the means or method of Dispatch 
to Dispatch communications in multi-system coverage events?  Where 
is that documented?

OTW, exporting and importing data for non-near real time systems 
is easy.  What GJXDM does in theory is to prevent all of these 
from being point-to-point data designs although it will be some 
time before that is realistic for more than the hub and spoke 
implementations (say a data warehouse).  Pushing data is easy 
and we do that now.  GJXDM offers no problems in that regard 
other than being verbose and difficult to teach.

We've implemented it too for sharing.  We welcome it for that use.  

A roll-out plan would certainly be welcomed but I think that 
has to be planned with the public safety vendors in the room.


From: Winfield Wagner [mailto:wwagner@crossflo.com]

Sorry to jump into the discussion but I had to respond to some of the points
made about the GJXDM. My name is Winfield Wagner and I just jointed your TC
as an Observer.  I don't know if there is rule that Observers should be seen
not heard but I must argue some points this time.  

I agree that GJXDM could be a big honking middleware if it is implemented
incorrectly.  Thinking in terms of replicating every column of every
database in most of the current legacy systems in one-off schemas that have
a lot of extension to meet every unique element of the participating sharing
agencies is not a good idea.  

If you think in terms of sharing 95% of the information through standardized
schemas that have no extensions, we could accomplish the goal of sharing a
big chunk of information between agencies, domains and levels of government
and public sector. 

As far as performance, I can not argue the fact that using GJXDM slows down
everything.  At the same time a delay in obtaining information seems to be a
little sacrifice for getting to information that I never had or would take
hours, days and week to get. 

I believe GJXDM was meant to be a transport mechanism that allowed silo-ed
systems to share information not to replace existing database structures or
query applications.  Yes it can be used for that but we just to need to
think in terms of sharing at a crawl before we start sprinting.

I argue that it can be implemented; because my company has.  We have been
able to demonstrate with our Regional Information Sharing and Intelligence 
Project that GJXDM can be implemented for real world problems.  We were able
to distribute information from multiple regional and local sources to a
single intelligence analysis tool. In my schemas, I use pure GJXDM with no
extensions that can represent 95% of the information needs of over 8
difference agencies' representation of a Field Interview.

As far as cost, it is much cheaper then maintain custom code for every data
exchange point and if done correctly can reduce costs associated with the
hard document exchanges that exist today. 

Is GJXDM ready for prime time?  Not yet but it is not going to go away.  It
may mutate into the NIEM but criminal justice community has accepted it.
That acceptance is not based on federal dictum but on a bottom up acceptance
that we need to share information.  I have been in the criminal justice
information business for 25 years and it is the first time I have seen
agencies making a business argument on the benefits of sharing.  That was
self evident at the first GJXDM user conference held last week.  Over a two
day period, we picked up 15 separate leads/opportunities and one contract
proposal related to GJXDM installations. The next day we were notified of
three separate RFP's requiring the use of GJXDM.

I am not advocating the use of GJXDM for the Emergency Management domain. My
only experience is in the area of law enforcement so I can not tell you the
benefits and problems with using GJXDM in that domain. But do not think
GJXDM is going away.  It will have an impact on emergency services and how
it communicates with other domains. 

So as an observer and deemed by the voting member of the TC, I will go back
in my hole and watch from the sidelines.
Thank you for you time


Winfield J. Wagner
Director of Integrated Justice Information Systems
11995 El Camino Real
Suite 302
San Diego, CA  92130
Office Phone: 858.724.2216 Ext. 237
Fax:              858.724.7224
Cellular:        858.525.1447

MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its
attachments from all computers. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:51 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.


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 

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.


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
>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.
>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

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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]