1. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida How will your GIS data be uploaded to the NG9-1-1 System? Jason Horning & Brian Rosen NENA: The 9-1-1 Association

2. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida What a SIF is… Currently  A standardized interface used between GIS databases and NG9-1-1 databases.  May be a component of a larger GIS product offering; may also stand on its own, integrating into established GIS systems.  Simple, nothing fancy here.

3. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida What a SIF isn’t… Currently  A database  A QA/QC tool  An aggregation tool

4. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida SIF Design  Modeled after the “Replication Feed” identified within OGC 10-069r2:  GeoRSS + Atom + WFS/GML  Replication Feed is a log of changes that have been applied to a data provider’s data store.

5. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida SIF Design (continued)  NG9-1-1 Functional Elements (ECRF, LVF, etc.) subscribe to the SIF’s feed.  Insert, Update, Delete changes are broadcast by the SIF and incorporated into listening FEs.

6. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida Sample SIF Process As an Add-on to Existing GIS System ESInet LVF ECRF Map SIF GIS Animated Slide

7. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida Sample SIF Process As a New GIS System ESInet LVF ECRF Map GIS SIF Animated Slide

8. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida XML Schema and Sample Feed  XML Schema for SIF Provisioning is available for review and comment.  Sample Feed Example Sample Feed Example

9. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida The GIS to NG9-1-1 FE Process SIF Counties or Equivalents SourceOfDate DateUpdate StateUnqID Country State County GML CountyBoundary SourceofData DateUpdated EffectiveDate Authoritative UniqueID Country State County GML Data Flow

10. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida Current SIF Conflicts  I3 Architecture scope is narrower than the scope defined within other NENA standards  Example: “SIF contains, maintains, and supplies the authoritative copy of the data….” NENA- STA-005 Provisioning and Maintenance of GIS data to ECRF/LVF (DRAFT)  i3 Architecture Scope is narrower than Vendor’s products

11. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida Discussion

12. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida SIF Thoughts Brian Rosen Neustar

13. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida SIF from the beginning  There are no standardized interfaces from a GIS system. Closest you get is download of a shape file, which is proprietary and batch  We needed something standardized, and near- real-time  In a discussion with Carl Reed at OGC, we learned about the mechanism we currently specify  It seemed like a good match to get data out of a GIS into an ECRF/LVF

14. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida The SIF is  A standardized provisioning interface for ECRF, LVF, GCS, MCS and Map Database  Designed to maintain, in near-real-time, a set of layers where the server is a GIS system, and a NGCS element is the client.  Designed so an update in GIS is reflected in the ECRF in seconds  On-line, near-real-time  It has ONE standardized interface.

15. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida As Originally Envisioned  SIF was to be built in to a GIS, integrated into the GIS APIs to detect changes in the layers and reflect them in the interface.  ECRFs/LVFs, etc. would coalesce data when multiple sources fed one element and detect problems between contributors (gap/overlap)

16. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida And So (from here forward is my opinion)

17. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida QA/QC  Someone please tell me why edits to GIS systems should not follow INTERNAL QA/QC processes to ensure all systems fed from it get good data?  Why are EXTERNAL QA/QC processes necessary or desirable?  Who thinks ECRFs, or any other NGCS element should blindly assume its provisioning is good and gap/overlap is someone else’s problem?

18. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida Coalescing data is necessary  And doing it repetitively is unnecessary  But it’s not hard (and if you buy my gap/overlap position, it’s almost free)  But it least makes more sense to me to at least allow it to be done in some box between the GIS systems and the NGCS elements then not doing gap/overlap in those elements

19. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida If we do invent new FEs  What is the interface between the GIS and the new FE?  Back to square one on standardized interfaces to GIS  Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to make that proprietary  If gap/overlap is not retained as must in ECRF et. al., then we need a whole new error mechanism to report a problem with the data  And everything has to be near-real-time, flow through provisioning. Think seconds from changing a service boundary polygon to getting route changes in the ECRF  Not clear every layer has to be that fast, but if one does, how does that fact help anything?

20. NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida Which leads me to think  Retain SIF as the layer replication interface from GIS to everything else  Allow arbitrary function SIF-in, SIF-out boxes that do things like coalesce  Still think NGCF boxes should do gap/overlap and coalescing, but it could be fairly primitive