I believe the goal is to get everyone to next
generation. Realistically, this will take a while and there will always
be cases where there are some missing organizations in the
communication "loop" or the buildings themselves may not be monitored
with next generation building servers. We expect many rural and
"low-tech" communities to continue to operate like they do today for
quite a while. The major cities or highly populated cities and
"high-tech" communities will mostlikely convert over to next generation
first, so there will certainly be a mixture, perhaps for a long time if
the smaller communities can not support/afford to switch over to next
generation.
Regards - Alan
Deborah MacPherson wrote:
Thanks Alan - will correct spelling and work in these
points below over the next couple days. Is the goal to get everyone to
the next generation or will there always necessarily be current and
next generations both for the foreseeable future? What about an
extremely rural area? In regards to being out of order, Room 310 is
showing up too late in the beginning also - Thanks and Regards, Deborah
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Alan Vinh <alan.vinh@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Deborah,
1) My last name is "Vinh" not "Vihn" (slides 15 & 18).
:-)
2) The NIST slide (16) has next generation communication in red and
current communication in black. So for slide 17, if that red box is
representing next generation communication then it should be covering
the lower right hand corner where the "buildings" are. I.e., when the
CSA companies connect back to the building to verify the emergencies,
they are connecting back through the BBS (using appropriate security
measures, etc.) to get to the building alerts, floorplans and other
building information. We are envisioning that the "security systems"
and "fire systems" that the CSA companies currently monitor (see lower
left corner of the NIST diagram), will be integrated into sending
alerts via CAP messages (or some other standard message?) so that every
part of the building will be communicating with the first responder
networks (CSA, NG9-1-1, PSAP, etc.) in the same manner using building
servers such as the BBS & BPS. At some point in the chain of
communication, the BPS will connect to its "configured" SAP and will
send its alerts to that SAP, i.e., to the CSA, NG9-1-1 or directly to
the PSAP depending on the configuration of that particular
jurisdiction. Note that not all organizations will be available
everywhere in the country, so we will have cases such as:
BBS->BPS->CSA->NG9-1-1->PSAP (fully functional city)
or BBS->BPS->CSA->PSAP
(NG9-1-1 not available)
or BBS->BPS->NG9-1-1->PSAP
(CSA not available)
or BBS->BPS->PSAP
(CSA & NG9-1-1 not available)
or none of the above and communication will be done as it is
currently being done
Once the BPS has done its job and notify the first responder network
(CSA, NG9-1-1 or PSAP), then the scenario continues with perhaps the
human interaction to review & verify the emergency, then the alerts
are forwarded to the proper authorities.
3) For slide 18, once the
alerts
have reached the CSA or PSAP via the SAP, i.e., what happens within
each organization can vary so the scenario is describing that each
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system will parse the alerts and populate
their data forms accordingly (either in the CSA
or PSAP or wherever). We are interested in
getting the alerts to the various organizations such as CSA, NG9-1-1
and PSAP via the SAP, but then each organization will deal with the
alerts in their own way. There are over 250 CAD vendors and each may
populate their trouble tickets in their own proprietary ways, what we
would like to see is that they all will support the "common" alert
message such as the CAP message to electronically populate their
systems. In the case for the NG9-1-1 organization, their systems would
take the "common" alert message and route it to the appropriate PSAP
perhaps by using EDXL, human intervention will probably be minimal.
For the CSA folks, we envision the BPS sending its alerts into
designated CSA owned SAPs that will route the alerts to the appropriate
CSA companies depending on the alerts' addresses. Once those
responsible CSA companies have received the alerts, they will go into
action to verify the emergency and contact the PSAP folks as necessary
(either directly or via the NG9-1-1 network, both via SAPs). EDXL seems
to also fit well for the routing that would be done by the CSA's SAPs.
So for slide 18, the "Data Fields" box and the "9-1-1 Dispatch Center"
symbol should probably be used inside the PSAP. If you are trying to
depict that NG9-1-1 is IN the communication loop, then they should be
inserted BEFORE the PSAP since they will be taking the alerts from CSA
and routing those alerts to the appropriate PSAP.
4) The SAP represents the
common
gateway for sending information to the various entities in the
communications loop. So if we want to send information to the CSA
folks, there should be a CSA common gateway that we can send the data
through. Similarly, this common gateway is available for the NG9-1-1
folks and the PSAP folks - each common gateway is NOT the same physical
access point, but they share the same footprint, protocols and security
measures. Think of the SAPs as doors to cookie cutter houses where
people/information can go through, and there are many of these houses
using the same door layout. The goal is for every public safety
organization/network, there should be a SAP with common protocols and
security measures that we can access to send emergency information
into. The SAP would be the mechanism for any of the organizations to
communicate with each other, we are envisioning that the SAP (or some
form of it) will also be used to communicate with the buildings (i.e.,
the BBS would support a SAP to access building information).
I hope this clears up your question about having a single SAP in the
diagram - it is intuitively not possible. Every entity/organization
that you insert into the communication scenario should support a SAP in
order for other entities to communicate with it.
Regards - Alan
Deborah MacPherson wrote:
Hi NIST BFRL, BSP, and David Coggeshell
Please see attached revised slides with a question. I added
the
scenario text highlighting relevant phrases in red. Now I'm trying to
combine the NG9-1-1,
CSAN, PSAP and BISACS Integration slide
to show the whole process from both OGC/NBIMS and the NG9-1-1, CSAN,
PASP and BISACS Integration points of view.
The
question is, on your slide each of the orange clouds has an SAP
Standard Access Point server along with computers as if this scenario
took place in a fully functional city. But, as mentioned in the call,
sometimes not every component is available. If so - could there be only
one SAP in the middle of an idealized cycle rather than repeated at
each orange cloud? If so, the next slides would be what David and
Michelle call a "Common Operating Picture" for a fully functional city.
The one after that would show examples if 9-1-1 was missing, if there
was no CSA monitoring the building etc. Still focusing on getting the
building to communicate to the outside and vice versa.
The aim for the last slides continues to be overlays showing
which formats, classifications, languages (EDXL, GML, IFC, OWL) could
be used for each step or area. I will need assistance to properly
locate the languages. The whole background represents OGC and NBIMS
standards. Literally need to also show the context or coverage of
supporting information such as the IFD-CSI dictionary.
The backgrounds here are like the static floorplans. Also
added
a slide for the Static vs Dynamic steps 1, 2, 3, 4.
Thank you for your feedback.
Deborah
--
********************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
Specifications and Research, WDG Architecture
********************************************************
--
********************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
Specifications and Research, WDG Architecture
The content of this email may contain private
and confidential information. Do not forward,
copy, share, or otherwise distribute without
explicit written permission from all correspondents.
********************************************************
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/bsp-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:bsp-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/bsp-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/BSP/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?BuildingServicePerformance (01)
|