Instructions for NENA ISSUE SUBMISSION FORM s1

NENA ISSUE SUBMISSION & CHARTER FORM - NENA-ADM-003 Instructions for NENA ISSUE SUBMISSION FORM: 1. The Originator completes Section 1 and e-mails the form to the NENA Committee Resource Manager (CRM) at [email protected]. 2. Upon approval of the DSC Co-Chairs & HQ Staff1, the CRM publishes the form for 10-day review. 3. The Development Steering Council (DSC) reviews Section 1 along with comments received during the 10-day review and decides whether to accept the Issue according to the criteria described in NENA ADM-002. Acceptance of the Issue does not necessarily include acceptance of the “Requested Outcome or Proposed Solution”. If the Issue is accepted and assigned to a Committee, the CRM fills out Section 2 based on DSC instructions. 4. The Committee Co-Chair(s) and all Subcommittee/Working Group Chairs complete Section 3 (the Working Group Charter) and emails the form to the CRM. 5. The DSC approves the Working Group Charter and the CRM enters the approval date in Section 2. 6. The CRM sends a copy of the updated form to the Originator. 7. The CRM updates Section 2 when the Issue status changes.

NOTE: Some fields on this form will be used to populate the Charter if this Issue is accepted and assigned by the DSC. Section 1 - Issue Details To Be Completed by the Originator Please provide input for all fields Short title (what the Issue may easily be referred to by) Date Submitted: 7/14/2017 Fixing problems with CLDXF Originator Name Christian Jacqz Originator Organization MassGIS (MA) Originator Email [email protected] Originator Phone 617 388 4073 Description of Problem or Opportunity (Provide detailed and clear information. If this is time sensitive or critical provide an explanation. This ISF proposes to revisit CLDXF and deal with several issues which are impacting other workgroups such as the GIS Data Model and Data Stewardship and which have caused difficulties in the deployment of some NG systems. These issues relate to the guidance for building and place name elements and to the schema for the landmark element. This ISF is limited in scope, and the changes proposed could be implemented relatively

1 See ADM-002 for details surrounding Issue acceptance.

NENA ADM-003, 07/28/2015 Page 1 of 7 NENA ISSUE SUBMISSION & CHARTER FORM - NENA-ADM-003 quickly. Their impact on existing systems would be minor. Note, however, that there may be other issues that are identified if a working group is formed.

(continued)

1. Buildings Here is the current guidance for the building element: In general, if a building is identified by a number or letter that distinguishes it from others at the same address, the identifier should be placed in the - Building element (e.g., "Terminal 3" in John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 3; "Building A" in 456 Oak Street, Building A, Apartment 206). If a building is identified by a name that is unique within the community, the name should be placed in the Landmark Name element (e.g. "Empire State Building"; "Ohio State University, Derby Hall"). It is clear from the above that only sequential identifiers are allowed in the building element, and actual building names like “Conley Library” go into the landmark element if they are well-known, based on the definition of landmark: The name by which a prominent feature is known. But sometimes it is hard to say what is "prominent" and what is “publicly known.” The guidance is confusing and ambiguous. The much bigger problem is that there are many buildings which are not “prominent features” by anyone’s definition, are not sequentially identified and do not possess an individually assigned thoroughfare address. These buildings cannot be assigned a useful address if one strictly follows the CLDXF standard, but they may well be referenced by a caller and should be “dispatchable” in an NG-9-1-1 system. At present the only place to store their names is the other location information element. Such buildings are typically found on a college campus or a large industrial site. Putting their names into the additional location information field means going back to the same “kitchen sink” approach that is the bane of current systems and is hard to search and validate. It also means that content which would normally be in the additional location information element is either displaced or combined in with the building name. The real problem is that it’s totally counter- intuitive to say that sometimes a building is a building, sometimes it’s a landmark and other times it’s an “other location.” Such confusing guidance is likely to lead to very poor data quality.

2. Landmarks The landmark element, ideally, would fulfill the function of “point of interest” datasets commonly used in current systems – locations well known to dispatchers, from which calls commonly originate. As inherited from the FGDC standard, the landmark element is more complicated - a compound element, consisting of a non-ordered, concatenated sequence of one or more landmark parts. This structure has serious disadvantages in that it does not support a more useful organization of data or easy linkage to GIS features. The biggest issue is that the compound element in xml does not translate well to a tabular approach, and as a result, implementing landmarks in the GIS Data Model has been difficult - the current draft proposal for landmarks is almost impossible to explain let alone execute. There shouldn’t be the need for a related table to handle the relationship between landmarks and landmark parts.

3. Place Names near Boundaries There is one final issue which needs to be dealt with in CLDXF, which is that the guidance for all the “place” elements is ambiguous. For example, the definition for the incorporated municipality element is “the name of the incorporated municipality or other general-purpose governmental unit (if any) where the address is located.” This phrase “where the address is located” is repeated for the county, unincorporated community and neighborhood community. Unfortunately, the definition does not clarify that “where the address is located” NENA ADM-003, 07/28/2015 Page 2 of 7 NENA ISSUE SUBMISSION & CHARTER FORM - NENA-ADM-003 may vary depending on how the address is represented. Many NENA members have encountered difficulties caused near jurisdiction boundaries when the representation of an address by a building centroid is physically located in a different jurisdiction than where the address itself is “located” along the road centerline. This is typically in situations where the driveway or un-named access road crosses the jurisdiction boundary. This may seem like a minor detail, but in some jurisdictions there are hundreds of such cases. Unless properly managed, this situation can threaten data integrity and complicate quality assurance, leading to subsequent problems with validation and call routing. Requested Outcome/Proposed Solution (Provide detailed and clear information): Buildings and Landmarks For the first two problems, related to building identifiers and landmarks, there is an alternative to the current approach which is simpler, easier to understand, backward compatible to FGDC/CLDXF and much more likely to be implemented consistently at any level of government. There are two parts to this alternative - 1. Update the guidance for building element so that ALL building names go in the building element 2. Add fields to the address schema for specific types of landmark parts, thus eliminating the awkward relationship between landmark and landmark part. These two steps complement each other by providing more structure and simpler, more intuitive guidance on what kind of data goes where. The proposed update extends the logic of how the schema for other sub-address elements evolved from FGDC to CLDXF. The former has one or more free-form type-value pairs, which is totally flexible and works well in xml but is not how most data are managed. The FGDC approach does not support easy data loading or validation and does not provide enough structure to make databases searches efficient. De-duplication and matching, important benefits of standardization, become much more difficult using the free-form approach. CLDXF, in contrast, provides the structure of a hierarchy of fields – building, floor, unit, room – where it is clear what kind of content belongs in each field. What is proposed here is based on similar logic – make the building element inclusive, and provide a structure for managing landmark parts so that the need for landmark parts, implemented as a related table in the GIS Data Model, goes away. This approach has been tested and validated in a statewide NG deployment, and two additional fields were sufficient to handle all the cases encountered. I am happy to provide more detail on the proposed implementation if desired. Definition of Place Elements For the last problem, ambiguity in assignment of place names, it is clear that users of the standard need more precise guidance. What’s proposed is that for thoroughfare addresses, which specify an address location in relation to a named street, the place name should be based on the location of the access point along the street (e.g. where the mailbox is typically located). This is a difficult problem and there is no perfect solution, but it is preferable to provide clear guidance for a situation that has frustrated many jurisdictions, rather than allowing for a multiplicity of options, especially where the proposed alternative has clear advantages for data integrity. The exact details need to be worked out, perhaps involving a “flag” for the inconsistency between the “address” location and the “geographic” location, or perhaps requiring additional fields, but the current situation presents clear operational risks. This solution of using the location of the geocoded point on the named street, or even better, the access point where the driveway intersects the street, has been tested and works.

NENA ADM-003, 07/28/2015 Page 3 of 7 NENA ISSUE SUBMISSION & CHARTER FORM - NENA-ADM-003 Section 2 – DSC Tracking To be Completed by NENA DSC

Issue Number 20170714 Date Published for 10-Day 07/16/2017 Review Review Comments 08/08/2017 Date and Reasons for Rejection by the DSC Date Assigned by DSC 08/08/2017

Submit PINS to ANSI? ☐ Yes ☐ No Date PINS Submitted:______Referred To - Who will receive the Issue?: If applicable, which NENA Committee will own this Issue?

☐ Accessibility ☐ Agency Systems ☐ Data Management ☒ Data Structures ☐ Interconnection & Security ☐ NGTPC ☐ PSAP Operations ☐ Public Education & PSAP Training Or specify the internal NENA owner of this Issue ______******************************************************************************************** Or specify which external entity it was referred to:

☐ APCO ☐ ATIS-ESIF ☐ ATIS-PTSC ☐ ATIS-WTSC ☐ IEEE ☐ IETF ☐ NFPA OTHER ______Working Group Assigned To (If applicable) Estimated/Requested Completion Date of draft (if applicable) DSC Instructions to the Working Group (includes supplements or modifications to the Originator’s Requested Outcome) Date the Charter is due back 10/30/2017 to DSC Date Working Group Charter Approved Actual Completion Date (to be completed later)

Status Updates: link to Scopes & Goals Resolution: (a brief explanation of how the Issue was resolved for closure) Section 3 – Working Group Charter To Be Completed by the Committee Co-Chairs & all Subcommittee/Working Group Co- Chairs, and approved by the DSC.

Assigned Committee & Working Group (should be based on the name Issue Number Date WG Created used in the Issue Submission form, and include the Parent Committee (from above) (if it is a new WG) name.)

Goal/Objective/Deliverable (Describe each goal/objective/deliverable and provide detailed and clear information, based on the accepted Issue.) #1 goal/objective/deliverable: ______#2 goal/objective/deliverable: ______#3 goal/objective/deliverable: ______

Importance (Rank each goal/objective/deliverable as Essential, Important, or Desirable as follows;  Essential – required for something else to succeed

 Important – helpful toward the success of another work effort

 Desirable – asset for other reasons

#1 goal/objective/deliverable is ranked: Choose an item. :

#2 goal/objective/deliverable is ranked: Choose an item.

#3 goal/objective/deliverable is ranked: Choose an item.

Schedule (Considering the Estimated Completion Date for the Issue, establish when each goal/objective/deliverable should be met or accomplished, and provide detailed and clear information, based on the accepted Issue. If applicable, list any intermediate schedule milestones, e.g., “Outline complete”, “First draft complete”.) #1 goal/objective/deliverable: ______#2 goal/objective/deliverable: ______#3 goal/objective/deliverable: ______

Dependencies (Identify all known dependencies for achieving success, e.g., completion of work in other committees or other organizations outside of NENA.)

Chair(s) (Who will serve as the Chair(s) for the group performing this work? Provide name, phone and email.)

Editor(s) (Who will serve as the Editor(s) for the group performing this work? Provide name, phone and email.)

Participating Organizations (Identify all outside organizations that will be needed for success of the identified goals/objectives/deliverables, e.g., APCO, ATIS, NEIM, IHIS, etc.)

Subject Matter Expertise Needed (Identify the types of SMEs needed to achieve success.)

Required Resources (Identify the types of non-human resources needed to achieve success, e.g., list server, web site, etc.)

Initial Work Schedule Plan (Identify the initial call & meeting schedule, e.g., every Tuesday at 10am EASTERN.)

Status Reporting Schedule (The Charter serves as the guiding document to drive work activities toward established goals. Additionally, it serves as a tool to ensure timely status reports to the DSC throughout the work interval. Depending on the nature of the work, and its impact on other work, the timing of status reports may differ among WG activities. This field is to be used by the DSC to establish the timing of WG status reports to the DSC or designated Project Mgr(s).)

Measurement (How will each goal/objective/deliverable be evaluated? Use quantitative and/or qualitative measures which are descriptive of the measurement criteria) #1 goal/objective/deliverable: ______#2 goal/objective/deliverable: ______

Other?

NENA ADM-003, 07/28/2015 Page 6 of 7 NENA ISSUE SUBMISSION & CHARTER FORM - NENA-ADM-003

NENA ADM-003, 07/28/2015 Page 7 of 7