[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: Comment: EM-TEC Client Registry Exchange v. 1.0
My email to the TEC SC unfortunately bounced. Apologies for providing my comment via our broader EM-TC list.
My only input might be a brief background/history to provide reader context for the drivers of the standard. The section pasted below from the original Requirements and Messaging Specification should not be used verbatim, but may provide useful input to provide a brief summary. The referenced diagram need not be used, although the relevant sub-section may be helpful to support the concept.
1.3.2 Client Registry Exchange
Today, many public and secured “Registry” systems are in place governed by private industry, or NGO’s such as American Red Cross, Google and CNN, as well as government organizations such as FEMA. These open registry systems are designed for open, public access used for registering your location and status information during an evacuation, and allowing the public the search for their loved ones (i.e. “is my Mom OK?”). Some registry systems have partnered to share data utilizing the “People Finder Interchange Format” (PFIF). The desire and requirement addressed in this specification facilitates the transition of PFIF into EDXL with required enhancements, to facilitate SDO governance of a Registry System data exchange standard for broad-based exchange of data between any person registry systems.
The TEC Client Registry Exchange provides the ability for automated sharing of new or updated information in a standard format with other exchange partner registry systems, where the date is used to add or update records in each receiving system. Thus a registry system receiving standard information exchanges from several other systems will contain many more records for people to search and ultimately find their loved ones.
Referring to Figure 2 Clients may register their information into any of a number of registry systems, in one of several ways.
· The “register” lines from each shelter to a database symbol, represents the possibility that clients being sheltered may self-register or have assisted registration into a registry database
o Lines between database symbols represent a TEC Client Registry Exchange sharing information between different registry systems
· The “self-register” lines in the upper right (utilized by self-evacuees or sheltering-in-place) represent public access to one of several available registry systems for self-registration.
o Again, lines between database symbols represent a TEC Client Registry Exchange sharing information between different registry systems
· The users in the lower right represent public users directly searching public registry systems for loved ones, or authorized users searching secured systems. Users may also dial into “call centers”, where authorized users may provide information to those appropriately vetted.
A public, international effort has implemented such a data exchange between some of these systems through the “People Finder Interchange Format” (PFIF). These and other PFIF exchange partners have recognized that exchanging their records with other registry systems makes each system’s data more rich and valuable as a source to support the public, providing “people-finding” capabilities in response to calls.
Through this EDXL effort, Google and their partners recognized the value of making PFIF an open, international standard though submission to a public standards organization. Through this specification and ensuing OASIS process, the goal for final publication of the standard is to meet current requirements while addressing known enhancements for improvement. The goal for use of the standard is to improve the process and expand use of the data exchange to additional registry exchange partners, improving processes for search, people-finding and family re-unification across existing registry systems supported by private industry, NGO’s, and federal, state, local and tribal entities.