[bsp-forum] Fwd: Question about SAP FiremansDigitalKeybox

["Deborah MacPherson" <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx>]

removed signature disclaimer

Hi Alan, thanks for the your comments. 

2) The NIST slide (16) has next generation communication in red and current communication in black.

Adding a legend with black and red squares to indicate

 

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

 

using the fire department digital keybox

I keep wondering if someone from the Knox company could provide comments on this effort. Whatever challenges they face with mechanical keys, owners and jurisdictions - a digital keybox faces some of the same issues. Knox Box would be a great consultant. For that matter so would Assa Abloy and Underwriters Laboratory. Maybe when the proof of concept is complete these organizations could be contacted for input. 

Building Owners and local jurisdictions could benefit from compliance through lower insurance rates, improved security, and more organized response from the fire department. Having comments from manufacturers and UL would help to make this case. 

 

to verify the emergencies, they are connecting back through the BBS (using appropriate security measures, etc.) to get to the building alerts, floorplans

David Coggershell and I talked on the phone last night - in addition to floorplans, sections and elevations will also be useful. 

 

and other building information. We are envisioning that the "security systems" and "fire systems" that the CSA companies currently monitor

do CSA companies require some kind of certification or periodic inspection?

 

(see lower left corner of the NIST diagram), will be integrated into sending alerts via CAP messages (or some other standard message?) so that

sensors in 

every part of the building will be communicating with the first responder networks (CSA, NG9-1-1, PSAP, etc.) in the same manner

Via the MVD Model View Definition being created. I'll look at the NBIMS MVD s more. There are only 21 currently in progress. Encourage everyone to see the ICC effort, overall diagram is here An example of using IFC for one of the scenario building elements, see - building stories . 

The MVD being created will need to rely on the List of Drawings, this specification section is typically numbered 00 01 15, the typical sheet is A1.00. Each sheet is like a slice of the model, the floorplans are in the A200 series, sections and elevations in the A300 series and so on. The List of Drawings can easily already be used for communicating in the same manner. 

Also schedules, particularly the door schedule A1.30 to add more meaning to floorplan data. In other words not every thing about the standard floorplans needs to be new. I've been looking at your Table 1 Building Source Data Classification and there are several entries that are completely new. 

 

using building servers such as the BBS & BPS.

just to confirm, the BPS is the SAP for the BBS?

 

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.

Skipping steps as needed. Like the standard floorplans, wouldn't it be a benefit to set up these configurations, predefine optimal data flow paths, up ahead of time?

 

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

I'll map these out in the next iteration. Concerned about bottlenecks of course.  

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.

Which are also always different.  See this overlay showing Zones in the OGC graphic. The lower portion can be for the fire department data, separate from the building, requiring less IFC compliance as shown by the OGC arrow in yellow on the right. 

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,

But to participate in this service system, its interesting to consider the top left portion of the OGC graphic which has not been "scenario-ized" yet.  Common protocols and pathways could be pre-defined here in words, locations, and this MVD also. This would be more interoperable and would let larger regions respond to and access building data.  

 

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.

This is the hard part to populate accurately. 

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

using predefined configurations already checked by the fire departments when possible. 

 

to the appropriate CSA companies depending on the alerts' addresses.

Note, in DC building addresses are ultimately assigned by the Post Office. The supporting data for this system to work includes - the CSI IFD Dictionary (incomplete), Census Data, NIMS, FEMA

 

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.

Who holds the digital keybox? Like a mechanical keybox wouldn't it ultimately reside in the building so its where you need it. Are they for the fire departments only and only activated via the SAP procedures? 

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.

 

Yes, will move. 

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.

with the same performance requirements

 

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.

 

Rather than literally a central SAP, more like spokes on a bike wheel, each one the same serving the same function and interchangeable. Supporting an SAP means connecting one circle to a bigger circle. 

 

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.

Yes - helps alot, slowly understanding this more. Thanks for the comments 

Deborah

_________________________________________________________________
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)