MSAG Conversion Service

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
© 2006 AT&T. All rights Reserved. AT&T Southwest VDB and ERDB Systems AT&T Southwest VDB and ERDB Systems.
Advertisements

ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY AVIATION | CIVIL | CONSTRUCTION SERVICES | DATA SYSTEMS | ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING | GEOSPATIAL.
Brian Rosen Chair, Long Term Definition WG.  i1 = document older strategies for VoIP into  i2 = standard way to support VoIP on current E9-1-1.
What’s Next for i3? Dan Mongrain, Senior Solutions Consultant Bell Canada Terry Reese NENA NG9-1-1 Architecture Evolution Subcommittee Chair Senior Consultant,
ARCHITECTURE ● ENGINEERING ● COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY AVIATION | CIVIL | CONSTRUCTION SERVICES | DATA SYSTEMS | ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING |
What Makes It Work? A Panel Discussion on Next Generation 9-1-1
NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida GIS Data Model for NG9-1-1 Marc Berryman, ENP Richard Kelly Michelle Manuel Raymond Horner.
Verizon MLTS E Enhanced Services for Business Customers and Multi-line Telephone System Users July 27, 2010.
Civic Location Data eXchange Format (CLDXF) Michael Gurley GIS Coordinator Oregon Office of Emergency Management.
Phil Peterschick - DES Jason Horning, ENP - NDACo 6/3/2015 GIS Workflows & MSAG Project Overview.
GIS “The Hero” for Next Generation 911 Joe Sewash North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.
Jason Horning, ENP NDACo 6/3/2015 Next Generation Update.
North American Emergency Services Brian Rosen Emergicom.
Address Assignments That Make Sense Indiana GIS Conference February 2010.
FGDC Address Standard Update: What's Next? Address Standard Working Group Martha Wells, GISP Carl Anderson, GISP Sara Yurman, GISP Ed Wells, GISP Hilary.
(Business) Process Centric Exchanges
What do YOU Really Need to Know?
Three Layer Architecture Why Bother with the Middle Layer?
NG9-1-1 Core Architecture: i3 v3 TERRY REESE BRIAN ROSEN.
Together, we’re changing the world of NG9-1-1 Deployments and Standards Nate Wilcox CTO.
Michael Gurley / John Murner Oregon Office of Emergency Management October 14, 2015 GIS DATA PREPARATION.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style Intrado © 2005 V9-1-1 Building a Foundation Matt Wilson 1/1/2006.
IBM Global Services © 2005 IBM Corporation SAP Legacy System Migration Workbench| March-2005 ALE (Application Link Enabling)
© 2015 Airbus DS Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. Lights, Camera, NG9-1-1 Diana Gijselaers/ Solutions Engineer – NG9-1-1 GIS and Core Services.
GIS Project1 Physical Structure of GDB Geodatabase Feature datasets Object classes, subtypes Features classes, subtypes Relationship classes Geometric.
FGDC Address Data Standard Scope, Status, and Structure  United States Street, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard"  Scope: Street, landmark,
West Virginia GIS Conference E-911 Session/SAMS II Update Jennings Starcher & Kevin Kuhn May 5, 2016.
Distributed Systems Architectures. Topics covered l Client-server architectures l Distributed object architectures l Inter-organisational computing.
Richard Muscat Roger Hixson, ENP
Technical Standards: Paving the Way to NG9-1-1
Tuesday, October 11 Defining and Planning for Spatial Interface Layer Replication (D ) 2:30 PM – 3:30 PM | George Bellows Ballroom A & B Facilitators:
The Future of GIS in the World
How GIS will support Ng911 in Indiana
Tribal Addressing and NG Issues
New York: Evolution of an ESInet
The Latest NENA Standards: An Overview
Understanding the System of Systems
Understanding & Defining Additional Data Interfaces in NG9-1-1
SCHOOL LOCATOR grid-codes.
Alison Sengupta County of Lexington
Governmental GIS Operations in PA
Using GIS to Enhance the Collaboration, Creation and Management of Assigning Addresses and New Roads in Island County Becca Blackman GIS Coordinator/Administrator.
NENA Standards Under Construction
The Geographic Support System Initiative (GSSI)
Chapter 18 Maintaining Information Systems
Parcel Fabric and the Local Government Model
Federated IdM Across Heterogeneous Clouding Environment
Attribute Extraction.
Improving Accuracy & Consistency in Location Validation
SPS FPDS-NG Integration: System Administration
Hierarchical Architecture
E-911 Atlas Dubuque County, Iowa.
ENP Study Group Next Generation 9-1-1
Spatial Data Processing
Thoughts on VoIP and Emergency Calling
County of Los Angeles eGIS Steering Committee May 15, 2007
Emergency Service Boundaries (ESB) Program
Model Information Exchange System - MIXS
CSSSPEC6 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT WITH QUALITY ASSURANCE
Model Information Exchange System - MIXS
Prof. Leonardo Mostarda University of Camerino
The Next Generation Proof-of-Concept System
Reporting Standards (defining and/or meeting)
Proposed JSDL Extension: Parameter Sweeps
Dominic Oldman ResearchSpace
NENA Standard for NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model
GIS and Coordinating a transition Barry Ritter, ENP
Chapter 8 roadmap 8.1 What is network security?
NG9-1-1 and the GIS Workflow
HUAWEI Technology 2019/8/25 Cognitive Radio Networks: Imagination or Reality? CrownCom 2008 HUAWEI Technology
Presentation transcript:

MSAG Conversion Service Bob Gojanovich, ENP Jim Shepard, ENP

What is MCS? Provides a convenient way to provide data to, or get data from, a legacy system that still uses MSAG data. This web service provides conversion between PIDF-LO and MSAG/ALI data. For a given PIDF-LO, what is its MSAG equivalent? For an MSAG-valid address, what is it PIDF-LO equivalent (GIS centric)?

Why do we need it? Nearly every MSAG has some variations from the original NENA data standards in how fields are used. Because of this variation, the MCS needs a complete set of fields for each “MSAG record” and a link between the MSAG record and street/address point records in the ECRF/LVF. Some MSAGs have content in address numbers, and address number suffixes that would not match that in the ECRF/LVF site/structure layer.

Where It Fits LNG LPG Civic PIDF-LO PIDF-LO ALI Civic MCS MCS

How is it provisioned? Provisioned using layer replication from the master Spatial Interface. The layers include all of the layers to create a PIDF, plus any layers needed to construct the MSAG for the local jurisdiction. These would typically include an MSAG Community Name Often includes the County ID For many jurisdictions where prefix/suffix and/or directionals are included in the Street Name would include a Street Name layer. Where the content of the MSAG is the same (for all addresses in the jurisdiction) as the equivalent PIDF-LO field, the layer need not be present. (What are the odds of that?)

No, really, how is it provisioned? GIS Road Center Lines (RCL) and Address Points (AP) differ from MSAG street segments since they come from two different sources for, generally, two different purposes. Scenario 1: GIS RCL = 1 – 100, CR 123, Dimebox, TX MSAG = 1 – 100, Middle Creek Rd., Lee County, TX Scenario 2: GIS AP (with no corresponding RCL) = 50 CR 123, Dimebox, TX Use or non-use of county codes, etc. GIS may use FIPS (e.g., Harris County = 201) MSAG may use literal (e.g., Harris County = HARS)

GIS Layer (Appendix B)

Other issues Dispatchable Address: MSAG lacks “floor #”, “room #”, etc. Transitional Use of ESNs How do you know where / when you need maintenance on the MCS layer? How do you ensure consistency in responses across vendor platforms? Who will pay for it? The NG Authority? Legacy Authority? State?