FAQs
How many message sets should one IEPD cover:
1) A single message, a portion of a set;
2) A single message set, a single exchange from start to end;
3) Many message sets?
What is the impact of placing to many or to few message sets in an IEPD?
There is no guidance at this point as to how many exchanges an IEPD should cover.
In fact, PMO is in the process of refining an IEPD specification, so some of this may be subject to change in the future.
That said, the concept of an IEPD is meant to be simple and scalable. If I create an IEPD for a set of related exchanges (or message payloads) like a set of queries and associated responses, and they all use the same subset and extension schemas, then it's probably a good idea to put them all into a single IEPD with a name that embodies the business purpose or function of these queries/responses. If I have a fairly large exchange (such as a Rap Sheet or a SAR) then it's probably better to keep that by itself in a single IEPD. If some kind of small query goes with that exchange (to trigger it or request it), then it's probably a good idea to keep that in that IEPD as well. The user must decide how cohesive a set of exchanges are. The more cohesive a set of exchanges are (either from a business perspective, functional perspective, or possibly organizational perspective, the more likely they should be together in one IEPD, especially if they employ/share the same subset and extension schemas.
The impact of too many or too few? As far as we know, there is no answer to this question. Again, the IEPD concept is meant to be simple. Does it simplify usability and understanding to combine exchanges into a single IEPD with one set of documentation? Are the exchanges fairly cohesive and depend on the same subset and extension schemas? Will creating a single large IEPD (with many exchanges) be more confusing or less confusing than making each a separate IEPD (possibly with lineage)? These are the kinds of questions a developer must answer to determine the best approach.
Occasionally, you may find yourself needing a wantlist that does not exist. This typically occurs when dealing with older IEPDs from the GJXDM era.
Why you might need the wantlist?
1) You need to make modifications to GJXDM subset schemas. The SSGT cannot import subset schemas. Instead, it needs a wantlist. If you have the subset schemas but no wantlist, then you can't modify the subset schemas with the SSGT.
2) You need to migrate a GJXDM IEPD to the NIEM. The NIEM Migration Tool requires a wantlist from which to migrate. Again, if you only have the subset schemas, you can't use the tool.
A quick aside here: If your problem is that you have a GJXDM 3.0 or 3.0.2 wantlist and see that the Migration Tool only supports GJXDM 3.0.3 wantlists, the solution is simple. Open the wantlist file in a text or XML editor and simply change the version number to 3.0.3. Because GJXDM 3.x versions are backwards compatible, earlier versioned wantlists cannot have anything in them that isn't also in version 3.0.3. So you can safely rename the version and use that for migration.
Why is it missing?
In many cases, the wantlist doesn't exist simply because the IEPD predates the advent of wantlists in the Subset Schema Generation Tool (SSGT). The SSGT initially had no way of saving a partially completed subset. Wantlists were originally a means for a user to save their place. The wantlists themselves later became the standard for listing needed elements and types.
In other cases, the subset schemas may have been created in tools other than the SSGT, which may not have also produced a wantlist.
Additionally, some subset schemas were actually created by hand, in standard XML editors, or even in text editors.
Finally, there may have once been a wantlist at the time subset schemas were created for an IEPD, and yet it may have been omitted from a published IEPD through neglect or oversight.
What to do about it?
There are a few alternatives. The first one is to simply re-select all the elements in the SSGT. In the case of a minimal exchange, this may be the simplest method. In other cases, this will be a long and tedious process.
Another alternative is to create a tool to read the subset schemas and produce a wantlist. The format for wantlists is standardized and publicly available. It is also fairly simple. XSLT would be an good basis for such a tool.
A final alternative is to find someone who has already created such a tool. One example is gotWantlist, a whimsically named tool hacked together quickly to create wantlists while migrating some very old GJXDM IEPDs.
As an admitted hack, gotWantlist comes with a laundry list of requirements and caveats.
Firstly, gotWantlist is written in PHP5, so PHP5 must be installed, either locally or on a web server somewhere. The code can either be run from the command line, directing the output into a file. Or it can be saved on a web server somewhere and run via a browser, saving the output as plain text.
Using gotWantlist requires a small bit of preparation. Here are the steps:
1) Save your GJXDM subset somewhere. (Really, all you need is the "3.0.2/jxdm.xsd" file.)
2) Put gotWantlist.php in the "jxdm" directory for the subset.
3) Open "jxdm.xsd" in a text editor and delete all the "xsd:" occurrences. It's just a simple search and replace. Save it as "f-jxdm.xsd". The reason is that the code was a quick hack using PHP's SimpleXML parsing, which was choking on namespaces. This workaround was faster than trying to figure out the namespace problem.
4) Run gotWantlist.php. It'll parse through "f-jxdm.xsd" and output a wantlist to standard output.
gotWantlist is GPLed. Feel free to use it or share it within the confines of the GPL. The code comes with absolutely no guarantee of any kind.
The code can be obtained from the NISS Helpdesk.
*Web Site Link:
http://niem.gtri.gatech.edu/niemtools/iepdt/display/container.iepd?ref=mZWCE8Akaqw
Description:
MemphisUASI IncidentArrest IEPD
*Exchange Partners:
Clerk's Office Court FBI Grand Jury Juvenile Justice Law Enforcement Local Probation Service Agency State Repository Victim Victim Services Others (list below) |
Other Exchange Partners:
Law enforcement agencies in MemphisUASI area
*NIEM/GJXDM Version:
NIEM 2.1
*Project Start Date:
02/25/2010
Last Revision Date:
10/05/2010
Next Revision Date:
*Status:
Draft
Status Description:
IEPD development is complete (draft). The actual exchange implementation is in the development/test stage.
Schedule:
*Participating Organizations:
Memphis/UASI partner agencies
*Contact Name:
Zedekia Jimbo
*Contact E-mail:
*Contact Phone:
901-678-3860
Contact Fax:
*Contact Organization:
University of Memphis Center for Community Criminology and Research/Memphis Police Department
Organization Web Site:
Street Address:
City:
Memphis
State:
TN
Country:
USA
Zip Code:
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) provides innovative leadership to federal, state, local, and tribal justice systems, by disseminating state-of-the art knowledge and practices across America, and providing grants for the implementation of these crime fighting strategies. Because most of the responsibility for crime control and prevention falls to law enforcement officers in states, cities, and neighborhoods, the federal government can be effective in these areas only to the extent that it can enter into partnerships with these officers. Therefore, OJP does not directly carry out law enforcement and justice activities. Instead, OJP works in partnership with the justice community to identify the most pressing crime-related challenges confronting the justice system and to provide information, training, coordination, and innovative strategies and approaches for addressing these challenges.
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) aids the member organizations of Global Advisory Commitee (GAC), and the people they serve, through a series of important initiatives. These include the facilitation of the GAC Working Groups. The Global Infrastructure/Standards Working Group (GISWG) recommended that OJP form the Global XML Structure Task Force (GXSTF) to identify data requirements, explore XML concepts, and apply XML best practices to the design and implement of the Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM). This recommendation was accepted and today, the GXSTF is composed of government and industry domain experts (law enforcement, courts, and corrections), technical managers, and engineers.
Since 1984 the Office of Justice Programs (OPJ) has provided federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. OJP's senior management team - comprised of the Assistant Attorney General (AAG), the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG), and the five bureau heads - works together with dedicated managers and line staff to carry out this mission.
The Assistant Attorney General is responsible for overall management and oversight of OJP. The AAG sets policy, ensures that OJP policies and programs reflect the priorities of the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress. The AAG promotes coordination among the bureaus and offices within OJP.
The bureaus are the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. OJP also includes the Community Capacity Development Office, the Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education. OJP's American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) Affairs Desk, coordinates AI/AN-related programmatic activity across the bureaus and program offices and serves as an information resource center for American Indian and Alaskan Native criminal justice interests.
Seven other offices within OJP provide agency-wide support. They are the Office of Communications, the Office of Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Office, the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of Budget and Management Services, the Office of the Comptroller, and the Office of General Counsel. Additionally, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) provides information services in support of the bureaus and program offices.
OJP Website: https://www.ojp.gov/
The Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) is the nonprofit applied research arm of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. GTRI employs around 1,300 people, and is involved in approximately $100 million in research annually for more than 200 clients in industry and government. GTRI's research spans a variety of disciplines, including national defense, homeland security, public health, education, and economic development.
Major customers for GTRI research include United States Department of Defense agencies, the state of Georgia, non-defense federal agencies, and private industry. Overall, contracts and grants from Department of Defense agencies account for approximately 80% of GTRI’s total expenditures. Their goal is to create solutions through innovation, on time and on budget. They assist clients in federal, state, local and international government agencies, industrial firms, academic institutions and private organizations. More than 70 percent of their research personnel hold advanced degrees, and all are committed to an independent, unbiased approach to solving problems. They also offer association with Georgia Institute of Technology colleagues who can contribute additional talent and knowledge for meeting technological and engineering challenges.
Georgia Tech Research Institute: http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, is a nonprofit membership organization created by and for the states. Since 1969, SEARCH's primary objective has been to identify and help solve the information management problems of state and local justice agencies confronted with the need to exchange information with other local agencies, state agencies, agencies in other states, or with the federal government.
SEARCH is governed by a Membership Group comprised of one gubernatorial appointee from each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as eight at-large appointees selected by SEARCH's Chair. Members are primarily state-level justice officials responsible for operational decisions and policymaking concerning the management of criminal justice information, particularly criminal history information.
A staff of professionals works from SEARCH headquarters in Sacramento, California, to implement solutions identified by the Membership Group. Through its staff and with the direction of the Membership, SEARCH provides justice agencies with diverse products, services and resources through three program areas: Systems and Technology, Law and Policy, and Research and Statistics.
Funding for SEARCH activities is provided by annual fees from Member states for the operation of the consortium and Board of Directors; grants from various U.S. Justice agencies; state grants; and federal, state and local contracts.
SEARCH Website: http://www.search.org/
The NLETS was created by the principal law enforcement agencies of the states nearly 35 years ago. Since the founding, NLETS role has evolved from being primarily an interstate telecommunications service for law enforcement to a more broad-based network servicing the justice community at the local, state, and federal levels.
It is now the pre-eminent interstate law enforcement network in the nation for the exchange of law enforcement and related justice information. The mission of NLETS is to provide, within a secure environment, an international justice telecommunications capability and information services that will benefit to the highest degree, the safety, the security, and the preservation of human life and the protection of property. NLETS assists those national and international governmental agencies and other organizations with similar missions that enforce or aid in enforcing local, state, or international laws or ordinances.
NLETS hopes to continue to be the premier provider of the network, system, and services that will support and encourage a totally standardized, integrated, international justice system. Acting primarily as a network provider, and to the degree required, a data warehouse, NLETS will endeavor to serve every stratum of the justice and public safety communities. NLETS has led the effort to advocate for the use of XML technology for law enforcement purposes.
NLETS Website: http://www.nlets.org/
The Law Enforcement Information Technology Standards Council (LEITSC) is established to address the issue of information sharing across disciplinary lines from the law enforcement community to public safety to other social service areas.
LEITSC is comprised of four of the nation's leading law enforcement associations:
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)
National Sheriffs' Association (NSA)
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
The LEITSC project began in 2002 with funding (Grant No. 2002-LD-BX-0002) from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance and continued in 2003 with funding (Grant No. 2003-MX-BX-0068) through a collaborative effort between the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Institute of Justice. LEITSC is currently solely funded by the Bureau of Justice (Grant No. 2006-LD-BX-K005) and continues to work in cooperation with the National Institute of Justice.
LEITSC has proven its strength and commitment to this endeavor by providing access to law enforcement experts to give input to standards development initiatives, creating outreach and training opportunities to keep law enforcement executives engaged in the process, and continuing to leverage collaboration and work that is currently underway to address the information technology needs of the law enforcement community. The law enforcement community understands the value of using information technology standards in their technology implementation , and over the last few years, significant progress has been made in the development and implementation of information technology standards to advance information sharing.
Projects within the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global), such as the Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM) and the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM), continue to evolve and develop standards that aim to ease information sharing across disciplinary lines from the law enforcement community to public safety to other social service areas. Through all of this, LEITSC has continued to promote information technology standards by exercising leadership and has brought the issues associated with information sharing to the forefront of the law enforcement executive's agenda.
LEITSC Website: http://www.theiacp.org/
The mission of NCSC is to improve the administration of justice through leadership and service to state courts, and courts around the world. Through original research, consulting services, publications, and national educational programs, NCSC offers solutions that enhance court operations with the latest technology; collects and interprets the latest data on court operations nationwide; and provides information on proven "best practices" for improving court operations.
NCSC also disseminates information to state court leaders on key national policy issues, and helps advocate their policies with Congress as well as supporting several prestigious national organizations. For more than 30 years, court leaders have called on the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) for up-to-date information and hands-on assistance that helps them better serve the public.
Through original research, consulting services, publications, and national educational programs, NCSC offers solutions that enhance court operations with the latest technology; collects and interprets the latest data on court operations nationwide; and provides information on proven "best practices" for improving court operations in many areas, such as civil case management.
NCSC are active advocates of the use of Global Justice XML Data Model in state courts. In fact, they designed Wayfarer which is an exploration and discovery tool to help us navigate the often intimidating size of the GJXDM. The National Center for State Courts is also the publisher of the Court Technology Bulletin (CTB).
The CTB started publishing in 1978 and has been a leading source of information on the application of technology to the court community since that time. The CTB has now gone ''hi-tech'' as a continually updated online resource available in a variety of formats like HTML, plain text, RSS news feeds and e-mail summaries, customizable by topic and sent periodically to subscribers at no charge. Judges and court staff, or anyone interested in court technology, who want to do their jobs better by staying informed on subjects such as GJXDM, courtroom technology, conferences and education, and new trends in technology are encouraged to read the CTB.
NCSC Website: http://www.ncsc.org
NCSC GJXDM Page: http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Technology-tools/National-stan…
Wayfarer: http://apps.ncsc.org/niem/
CTB Online: http://courttechbulletin.blogspot.com/
The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) system serves as the "honest broker" offering support, research findings, and technological expertise to help State and local law enforcement and corrections personnel perform their duties more safely and efficiently. NLETC was created in 1994 as a component of the National Institute of Justice's (NIJ's) Office of Science and Technology and the system is now assisted in its work by a national and regional advisory councils.
The NLECTC system consists of facilities across the country that are collocated The NLECTC system seeks to help law enforcement and corrections agencies through fostering the development and use of new and existing technologies. To do so, it has to identify and understand the needs and requirements of these agencies. A national advisory council and regional advisory councils that are attached to each center are important to this process. They form a bridge between the criminal justice community and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Office of Science and Technology. Across this bridge flows information about the workaday worlds of policing and corrections, and their operational needs. NIJ uses this information to help fashion and adjust its technology research and development programs to meet those needs.
Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC) LECTAC is the primary "big picture" link between the law enforcement and corrections community and NIJ's science and technology programs. Council members are appointed by NLECTC based on their records of distinguished service and include representatives from Federal, State, local, and international criminal justice agencies and organizations. Working to strengthen ties between NIJ and the law enforcement and corrections community, LECTAC reviews and analyzes the present and future technological needs of the criminal justice system.
The Council uses this information to recommend research and development priorities to NIJ and advises NLECTC on equipment testing, the creation of standards, user guidelines, and technical reports. At the same time, it relays information about NIJ's technology programs and products back to the criminal justice community for its review.
Guided by an executive committee, LECTAC is organized into subcommittees, all of which address technology areas of technology which are annually identified as priorities by NIJ and LECTAC. These subcommittees focus on law enforcement operations, corrections operations, communications, contraband detection, custody, investigative and forensic sciences, information systems, training and simulation, and weapons and protective systems. LECTAC and its subcommittees meet as appropriate to review NIJ programs, attend presentations on emerging technologies, meet with representatives of the centers' regional advisory councils, and discuss State and local technology needs.
Once a year, LECTAC recommends to the NLECTC system priorities for NIJ programs. Regional Advisory Councils The centers in the NLECTC system establish close ties to the States they serve through their regional advisory councils. Each council is made up of criminal justice practitioners who represent a cross-section of law enforcement and corrections agencies from each of the centers' constituent States. The regional advisory councils meet regularly to help center staff identify and rank the needs of the criminal justice community and provide feedback on NIJ programs. Council members
Ascertain and itemize current and future equipment and technological requirements of their criminal justice community
Review the programs of their center and the NLECTC system as a means of helping the system remain focused on the needs of State and local agencies
Recommend priorities for equipment testing and developing equipment standards, technical reports, and user guides
Review and comment on draft publications and reports as to their usefulness for law enforcement and corrections practitioners.
Regional advisory councils not only work with the regional centers but also provide information to LECTAC. Center Directors and council chairs relay information from the regional councils to LECTAC through regular meetings with the LECTAC executive committee.
Though the programs developed and funded by its bureaus and offices, OJP works to form partnerships among federal, state, and local government officials to control drug abuse and trafficking; reduce and prevent crime; rehabilitate neighborhoods; improve the administration of justice in America; meet the needs of crime victims; and address problems such as gang violence, prison crowding, juvenile crime, and white-collar crime.
The functions of each bureau or program office are interrelated. For example, the statistics generated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics may drive the research that is conducted through the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Research results, in turn generate new programs that receive support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Although some research and technical assistance is provided directly by OJP's bureaus and offices, most of the work is accomplished through federal financial assistance to scholars, practitioners, experts, and state and local governments and agencies. Many of the program bureaus and offices provide award formula grants to state agencies, which, in turn, sub-grant funds to units of state and local government. Formula grant programs in such areas as drug control and system improvement, juvenile justice, victim's compensation, and victim's assistance, are administered by state agencies designated by each state's governor. Discretionary grant funds are announced in the Federal Register or through program solicitations that can also be found through bureau and OJP Websites. Grant applications are made directly to the sponsoring OJP bureau or program office.
OJP website: https://www.ojp.gov/
The Global Advisory Committee (GAC) is made up of key personnel from local, state, tribal, federal, and international justice entities. It helps steer and facilitate Global’s efforts in efficient sharing of data among justice entities and was formed to serve as an advisory committee to the U.S. Attorney General.
The GAC, through its Working Groups, works collaboratively to address the policy, connectivity, and jurisdictional issues that have hampered effective justice information sharing. The GAC membership reflects the tenet that the entire justice community must be involved in information exchange. Experts represent the following constituencies: law enforcement agencies; prosecutors, public defenders, and courts; corrections agencies; and probation and parole departments.
Links to organizations that comprise GAC: http://www.iir.com/global/committee.htm
The National Sex Offender Public Registry, coordinated by the Department of Justice, is a cooperative effort between the state agencies hosting public sexual offender registries and the federal government. This website is a search tool allowing a user to submit a single national query to obtain information about sex offenders through a number of search options:
By Name
By ZIP Code
By County (if provided by state)
By City/Town (if provided by state)
By State (one or multiple)
National
The criteria for searching are limited to what each individual state may provide. Also, because information is hosted by each state and not by the federal government, search results should be verified by the user in the state where the information is posted. Users are advised to log on to pertinent state web sites for further information and/or guidance, as appropriate.
For further details please visit http://www.nsopr.gov/
The Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative (NSI) provides fusion centers with the ability to receive and vet SARs within their state or region, and rapidly notify the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) of potential incidents with the push of a button. Essentially the NSI provides the law enforcement community with another tool to “connect the dots” to combat crime and terrorism in a manner that rigorously protects the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. The IJIS Institute has played a key role in the analysis, design, and deployment of technology solutions to support broad information sharing functional objectives and NSI technical requirements.
See attached pdf for complete article.
Documents
https://bja.ojp.gov/media/document/30011