While I mostly just watch this discussion, I agree with Mike. Our
experience with
fielding records management for police, fire and dispatch systems is
that we and our customers require external definitions for enumerated
lists. The variation among local and state agencies is not easily
harmonized as these have requirements that vest in both law and
policy. So while we are able to create a system that is shrink-wrapped
to some degree where say NIBRS/UCR elements are called out, the closer
we get to the local codes, the higher the divergence. For that reason,
the business rules and the system lookups are both complex and unyielding
to simplification. To ensure that the costs of implementation are
reasonable even if higher than we like, we separate these out and
use tools created to work directly with these tables.
It is a common practice in my opinion and does not entail higher
risks. If over time, these lists converge as a result of input
from Federal agencies and global justice committee work, so much
the better, but until then, ignoring this only delays adoption of
the main body of the specifications.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
-----Original Message-----
From: Daconta, Michael [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:11 AM
To: ;
Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1
Hi Everyone,
In terms of general principles, you must also weigh the maturity of the
specification and the probability for the code tables needing to be updated.
Due to the broad scope of the distribution element, I believe the
probability for changing the code tables is high. Therefore the principle of
"separation of concerns" would win out (over simplicity) and make external
code tables a better choice.
Regards,
- Mike
