[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
>
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
>
> "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> >
> > The Justice XML schemas and data dictionary will
> > have these in some fashion. How much actual use
> > they are getting is questionable, but just as they
> > did with CALS and 28001, Federal grant money is
> > being attached to them for public safety systems.
> >
> > See www.it.ojp.gov
>
> >The following URL provides information on "Organizations Utilizing the
> >Global Justice XML Data Dictionary (GJXDD)":
>
> >http://www.it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=107
>
> Thanks! People should be well-informed.
>
> >The first "official" release of GJXDD (it's also referred to as GJXDM,
> >"M" for "Model") was a few weeks ago:
>
> >http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-01-22-a.html
>
> But is already referenced in an RFP sitting on my desk
> as we speak and it is older than a few weeks. The antecedents
> have been around for three years at least.
Yes - that's an issue that we discussed 2 weeks ago in San Diego at the
DOJ IWG (Industry Working Group) meeting. The discussions are underway
with the proper folks, and hopefully some clarity will emerge in the
future.
I've counted
> about four RFPs in the last eight months the reference
> these. Of these, only one had them as firm requirements
> and that one, some suspect, is written like that to
> prove no vendors have it and therefore it is a good
> idea to let the local IT shop do the work thus guarding
> the jobs in cash-strapped economies.
>
> >> Where the 80/20 point here is questionable. These
> >> are designed for databases that have a high degree
> >> of associativity among the elements.
>
> >Not sure what you mean - could you please explain this?
>
> I mean 80/20 is relative to the application. It's a no
> brainer to extract elements for some application as long
> as the scope of that is understood. It will be quite
> another to critique the source without understanding
> what it is designed for. IOW, one needs to understand
> the data pipes of public safety. These aren't one
> dimensional. One should read a lot of RFPs, know
> what the agency scales are (eg, San Francisco is
> not Pomona), know how diverse these are from agency
> to state and from state to federal, know that these
> same data elements don't really work globally, and
> so on. Otherwise, it's a good model.
>
> To understand
> >> these, one has to understand the master index types
> >> and how NIBRS is fed from local to Federal agencies.
> >> One must also understand the differences among
> >> operational and organizational statistics.
>
> >Also not sure what you mean here.
>
> This gets into a lot of detail. First, understand
> UCR/NIBRS. Then understand these are not univerally
> applied and are always locally customized. The high
> costs are in the customizations and these are actually
> necessary.
Yes - extensions are another issue that we discussed in San Diego. I
anticipate that more clarity will emerge on this in the future.
Lastly, I should mention that I also sit on a steering committee (since
late 2003) that oversees the Justice XML initiatives (I don't get into
the fine points of the schema techniques and design, but rather the
general direction and issues such as extension metholodologies, etc.).
Please feel free to provide any feedback that you'd like to me on
GJXDD/M and I would be happy to see that it's justly considered.
Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
So the Justice XML models end up being bid
> as up/down translation targets and if the system is
> wall-to-wall instead of best-of-breed, will slow the
> system down and make it more expensive. Best-of-breed
> will reduce the system's functionality so best-of-breed
> ends up being 75% of the possible functionality.
>
> Scale always means, pick a dimension. No free lunch.
>
> len
|
