OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

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

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

    Posted 03-23-2004 14:52
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

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


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


    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?
    


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