NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE for Data Exchange for the Fire Service
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR Data Exchange for the Fire Service Orlando, FL January 28 – February 1, 2019 Agenda 1. Call to order at 4pm 2. Introductions 3. Opening remarks - Chair, Ed Plaugher 4. Review and approval of minutes from previous meeting 5. NFPA Staff Liaison report - Chris Farrell 6. Presentations a. Andrew Bailey, Data manager, National Interagency Fire Center: Data Exchange in Wildland Fire: IRWIN and beyond b. Cory Hohs, CEO, HAAS Alert: Fire Department Collision Avoidance and Related Data Standards c. Matt Hinds-Aldrich, NFPA staff: Recap of data efforts at NFPA 7. Review public comments for NFPA 950 8. Review public inputs for NFPA 951 9. New business 10. Old business 11. Other items 12. Next meeting 13. Adjourn NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR Data Exchange for the Fire Service Raleigh, NC First Draft Meeting March 21-23, 2018 May 8, 2018 and May 29, 2018 Continuation Meeting Minutes 1. Call to order at 0800 2. Introductions TC members Andrew Bailey Christopher Carver Ron Corona Matthew Darley Jason Dolf Vern Elliott Tyler Garner Jeffrey Hartberger Vickie Hodges Kevin Kuntz Louis LaVecchia Crystal McDuffie Thomas O'Toole Roshelle Pederson Ed Plaugher Kenneth Pravetz Mike Price Paul Siebert James Smalley Chris Tubbs Guests Gus Delgado Peter Hallenbeck Matthew Hinds-Aldrich Cory Hohs Timothy Kepler Clarence Potter Steven Roberts Dan Walton 3. Opening remarks - Chair, Ed Plaugher 4. Review and approval of minutes from previous meeting 5. NFPA Staff Liaison report - Chris Farrell 6. Created First Revisions to NFPA 950 7. New business a. Discuss 950 and 951 going forward 8. Old business 9. Other items 10. Next meeting a. Continuation meeting to complete work of the Committee 11. Adjourn, NLT 12:00 pm local time, Friday, March 23rd 1/10/2019 National Fire Protection Association Report Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 950-2018 [ Global Input ] In 6.7.1 the standard discusses CAD but makes no reference to APCO or NEMA but both of these organizations are listed in Annex B. From what I can see any ogranizational standard tied to data is listed in both the document and the annexes except for these two. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment My recommendation would standardize the usage of data standardization organizations in the area of CAD. Related Item • 6.7.1 and the annexes Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jeff Alberts Organization: Savannah Fire Department Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Sep 12 09:04:31 EDT 2018 Committee: DAT-AAA https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp 1/21 1/10/2019 National Fire Protection Association Report Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 950-2018 [ Section No. 2.3.2 ] 2.3.2 U.S. Government Publications. U.S. Government Publishing Office, 732 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20401-0001. National Fire Information Record Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), version 5.0, January 1999. Standard for Symbology, Homeland Security Working Group, Federal Geographic Data Committee, July 2012. Topographic Mapping Standard for Symbology, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. United States National Grid Standard FGDC-STD-011-2001. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), United States Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard (DRAFT), 2011. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The proposed text describes the incorrect name for NFIRS. It should be the National Fire Incident Reporting System not the National Fire Information Record System. Related Item • www.usfa.fema.gov/data/NFIRS Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marion Long Organization: US Fire Administration Affiliation: Federal Government Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Oct 04 11:37:45 EDT 2018 Committee: DAT-AAA https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp 2/21 1/10/2019 National Fire Protection Association Report Public Comment No. 8-NFPA 950-2018 [ Section No. 6.2 ] 6.2 Coordination and Data Sharing. The exchange of nongeospatial data shall conform to Extensible Markup Language (XML) as defined in ISO 8879 or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as defined in ISO/IEC 21778 for or Extensible Markup Language (XML) as defined in ISO 8879 for the transfer of nonspatial data elements. The exchange of geospatial data shall conform to requirements of Geographic Markup Language (GML) as defined in ISO 19136 or Geospatial JavaScript Object Notation (GeoJSON) as defined in RFC 7946. The primary language shall be JSON/ GeoJSON and the secondary choice of XML/GML for use with larger more robust data sets. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The purpose in this recommended changes is to establish priority to the language choices. This priority will help to maintain the most efficient and highest speed of delivery of the data sets. Larger sets of data like video, spectra and other multilayered data sets may be too large and cumbersome to use JSON/ GeoJSON, so XML/GML would be the better choice language for those. If left as an open option between the two, manufactures will make the choice and we will continue to not have a true standard to work with. By establishing this standard and the priority language will enable the most efficient potential, interoperability and creating a common operating picture for the end user. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Relationship Public Comment No. 9-NFPA 950-2018 [New Section after A.6.1] Related Item • FR & CI Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Peter Jensen Organization: Ventura County Fire Department Affiliation: IAFC Hazardous Materials Response Committee Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Oct 26 14:58:03 EDT 2018 Committee: DAT-AAA https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp 3/21 1/10/2019 National Fire Protection Association Report Public Comment No. 14-NFPA 950-2018 [ Section No. 6.4.5.3 ] 6.4.5.3 Attributes shall exist that support the labeling of point features by latitude and longitude. 6.4.5.3.1 The latitude and longitude label attribute shall be depicted as absolute (unprojected) coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). 6.4.5.3.2* The latitude and longitude label attribute shall be depicted as decimal degrees. in the appropriate format (Decimal Degrees, Degrees Minutes, or Degrees Minutes Seconds) as determined by the AHJ. 6.4.5.3.3 A negative sign, or appropriate alphanumeric designator: W or S, shall be used for west longitude and south latitude, as determined by the AHJ . The absence of a negative sign, or appropriate alphanumeric designator: E or N, shall be used for east longitude and north latitude, as determined by the AHJ 6.4.5.3.4 The latitude and longitude label attribute shall be expressed to a precision and accuracy no greater than that at which the data were collected, acquired, or calculated. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Comments: This standard change moves from the realm of data exchange to the realm of user interface design and is out of character with our previous committee work. Additionally, Wildland fire, particularly in applications dealing with aviation resources, are bound by the standards of map use for aviation. Aviation maps and location references commonly use Degrees Decimal Minutes, expressed as DD MM.MMM N/W (example 34 23.543 N, 112 34.546 W). Other systems, such as the NOTAM (Notice To Airmen), require locations in Degrees, Minutes, Seconds. We should not, as a standards body focused on interoperability, recommend a display/UI change to decimal degrees without buy-in from all parts of our business, and in researching, have not found decimal degrees to be an industry best practice for display. It would work as a data exchange standard, but this section specifically refers to label attributes. The labeling format must be audience-specific. Related Item • Related to Latitude/Longitude labeling formats Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Andrew Bailey Name: Organization: US Department of Interior National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Data Management Affiliation: Committee Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Nov 15 12:02:41 EST 2018 Committee: DAT-AAA https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp 4/21 1/10/2019 National Fire Protection Association Report Public Comment No. 10-NFPA 950-2018 [ Section No. 6.4.5.3.2 ] 6.4.5.3.2* The latitude and longitude label attribute shall be depicted as degrees, minutes, decimal minutes (DDD-MM.mm) to conform with DHS endorsed national standards. If required, use up to 2 digits to the right of the decimal. If required, allow 3 digits in the degrees field for longitude (i .e., DDD-MM.mm). Do not use leading zeros to the left of the decimal for degrees or minutes that require fewer than the maximum number of possible digits to express their value. The minimum number of digits is always one, even if it is a zero. (Example: Recommended: 9-0.3N 4-2.45W; Not recommended: 09-00.300N 004-02.45W). Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Wording as offered has been endorsed by seven federal departments and agencies through the National Search and Rescue Committee as a way to eliminate confusion about the multiple forms of latitude and longitude. See page 165 of http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/emprep/download/USNG/2011_1118_Published_Land_SAR_Addendum_1.0.pdf as an example. Without setting a conforming standard for latitude longitude in this document, data systems and field use will continue to develop in irregular fashion and be detrimental to the overall health of the fire service and those it protects. Related Item • PI per NFPA 950 Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Stephen Swazee Organization: SharedGeo Affiliation: SharedGeo Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Nov 01 12:03:01 EDT 2018 Committee: DAT-AAA https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp 5/21 1/10/2019 National Fire Protection Association Report Public Comment No.