Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative

Infrastructure/Standards Working Group (GISWG)

Management and Policy (M&P) Subcommittee Meeting

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.40625in"
height="1.24375in"}![](media/image2.jpeg){width="1.6458333333333333in"
height="1.6458333333333333in"}

Crystal Gateway Marriott

1700 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, Virginia 22202

\(703\) 920-3230

**August 29, 2005**

# Meeting Summary

**[Attendees]{.underline}**

***[GISWG Members]{.underline}***

**Thomas M. Clarke, Ph.D.**

Chief Information Officer and Vice President,

Research

**National Center for State Courts**

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147

Phone: (757) 259-1870

Fax: (757) 564-2084

E-mail: tclarke@ncsc.dni.us

***Chairman, GISWG***

**Lieutenant Scott Edson**

Consolidated Criminal History Reporting System

Records and Identification Bureau

**Los Angeles County Sheriff\'s Department**

12240 Norwalk Boulevard, Suite 400W

Norwalk, CA 90650

Phone: (562) 345-4101

Fax: (323) 415-3330

E-mail: edson@lasd.org

***M&P Subcommittee Member***

**Mr. Paul S. Embley**

**Practitioner Resource Group**

Post Office Box 1309

Frankfort, KY 40602

Phone: (502) 695-7733

Fax: (502) 695-0055

E-mail: pembley@mstar2.net

***M&P Subcommittee Member***

***Chairman, Global XML Structure\
Task Force (Global XSTF)***

**Mr. Scott Fairholm**

Director of Technology Services

**National Center for State Courts**

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23185

Phone: (757) 259-1863

Fax: (757) 564-2075

E-mail: sfairholm@ncsc.dni.us

***Chairman, GISWG Services\
Subcommittee***

**Mr. James Feagans**

Enterprise Data Architect

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

**U.S. Department of Justice**

810 Seventh Street, NW, Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20531

Phone: (202) 353-2198

Fax: (202) 305-9075

E-mail: james.feagans@usdoj.gov

***National Information Exchange Model***

***(NIEM) Liaison***

**Mr. Kael Goodman**

Chief Information Officer

Deputy Commissioner

**New York City Departments of Correction\
and Probation**

60 Hudson Street, Seventh Floor

New York, NY 10013

Phone: (212) 266-1895

E-mail: kael.goodman@doc.nyc.gov

***Chairman, GISWG Registries\
Subcommittee***

**Mr. Ronald P. Hawley**

Executive Director

**SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics**

7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145

Sacramento, CA 95831

Phone: (916) 392-2550 ext. 260

Fax: (916) 392-8440

E-mail: ron.hawley@search.org

***Chairman, GISWG M&P Subcommittee***

**Mr. Gordon Lansford**

Director

**Kansas Criminal Justice Information System**

Landon State Office Building

900 SW Jackson Street, Room 751-S

Topeka, KS 66612-1275

Phone: (785) 291-3527

Fax: (785) 296-6594

E-mail: Gordon.Lansford@da.state.ks.us

***M&P Subcommittee Member***

**Chief Mark Marshall**

**Smithfield Police Department**

Post Office Box 246

Smithfield, VA 23431

Phone: (757) 357-3247

E-mail: mmarshall@smithfieldva.gov

***M&P Subcommittee Member***

**Mr. Michael P. Ryan**

Enterprise Architect

**Minnesota Office of Technology**

658 Cedar Street, Room 450

St. Paul, MN 55155

Phone: (651) 556-8024

Fax: (651) 215-3877

E-mail: mike.ryan@state.mn.us

***M&P Subcommittee Member***

***[Federal Official]{.underline}***

**Mr. J. Patrick McCreary**

Associate Deputy Director for Policy

**Bureau of Justice Assistance**

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

810 Seventh Street, NW, Room 4104

Washington, DC 20531

Phone: (202) 616-0532

Fax: (202) 305-9075

E-mail: <James.P.McCreary@usdoj.gov>

***[Staff]{.underline}***

**Ms. Terri Pate**

Institute for Intergovernmental Research

Post Office Box 12729

Tallahassee, FL 32317

Phone: (850) 385-0600 ext. 291

Fax: (850) 422-3529

E-mail: tpate@iir.com

**Ms. Donna J. Rinehart**

Institute for Intergovernmental Research

Post Office Box 12729

Tallahassee, FL 32317

Phone: (850) 385-0600 ext. 285

Fax: (850) 422-3529

E-mail: drinehart@iir.com

**[Agenda]{.underline}**

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 8:30 a.m.\*      | ***Large Group Convenes---Alexandria Room***      |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 8:30 a.m. --     | **Introductions, Welcoming Remarks, and Meeting   |
| 8:45 a.m.        | Background**                                      |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Tom Clarke, GISWG Chair*                       |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Ron Hawley, M&P Subcommittee Chair*            |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 8:45 a.m. --     | **Briefings**                                     |
| 9:30 a.m.        |                                                   |
|                  | -   Global Executive Steering Committee           |
|                  |     Meeting---August 3, 2005                      |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  |     -   Future direction for GISWG                |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  |     -   How GISWG fits into the larger Global     |
|                  |         picture                                   |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Tom Clarke*                                    |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   GISWG Structural Review and Status Reports    |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Tom Clark*                                     |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Ron Hawley*                                    |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Kael Goodman, Registries Subcommittee Chair*   |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Scott Fairholm, Services Subcommittee Chair*   |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Global Standards Efforts                      |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Paul Embley, Global XML Structure Task Force\  |
|                  | > (Global XSTF) Chair*                            |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Leveraging the Work of GISWG: the National    |
|                  |     Information Exchange Model (NIEM)             |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *James Feagans, U.S. Department of Justice*     |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 9:30 a.m. --     | **Roundtable Discussion: GISWG M&P                |
| 12:30 p.m.\*\*   | Subcommittee---Framing the\                       |
|                  | Issues to Support Service-Oriented Architecture   |
|                  | for the Justice\                                  |
|                  | Community**                                       |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Ron Hawley, Moderator*                         |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 12:30 p.m. --    | **Crafting a Subcommittee Work Plan: Mission      |
| 2:00 p.m.        | Statement, Products,\                             |
|                  | Timeline**                                        |
| 2:00 p.m. --     |                                                   |
| 2:15 p.m.        | > *Ron Hawley, Moderator*                         |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | **Concluding Thoughts, Next Steps, and Next       |
|                  | Meeting**                                         |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Ron Hawley*                                    |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

\* Breaks throughout meeting as needed.

\*\* Working lunch served at 12:00 Noon.

**[Meeting Goals]{.underline}**

The goals of this meeting were to establish a Global Justice Information
Sharing Initiative (Global) Infrastructure/Standards Working Group
(GISWG or "Working Group") Management and Policy (M&P) Subcommittee
mission statement and product roster (with associated timelines) for
presentation to the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ or "Department")
Global Advisory Committee (GAC or "Committee") on October 20, 2005.

**[Program Office Message]{.underline}**

Mr. Patrick McCreary, Global Designated Official, stressed the need for
expediency and underscored the Department's sense of urgency regarding
justice information technology (IT) initiatives. "The field is so
hungry, and that's what drives us at BJA \[Bureau of Justice
Assistance\]. We convene groups like you---experts---together then get
out of your way to let you accomplish your good work. It's amazing to
see what can happen when a small group of committed individuals get
together." He closed by reiterating the charge for Global participants
to "move with Godspeed."

M&P Chair Ron Hawley commended Mr. McCreary by noting that much of
Global's success---the incredible level of interagency collaboration,
productive dialogue between all tiers of government, and groundbreaking
IT relationship between DOJ and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) vis-à-vis the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)[^1]---can
be "attributed to Patrick: he's working behind the scenes, keeping the
IT engines fueled."

**[Federal IT Briefing]{.underline}**

Mr. James Feagans, NIEM Project Manager, briefed members on his
project's latest focus---establishing a governance structure.[^2]

At the conclusion of the NIEM briefing, GISWG Chair Tom Clarke, Ph.D.,
asked participants: "How much do we care about synching up to the NIEM
governance process?" While members agreed their obligation and focus
remains on advising the justice community, they also reached consensus
regarding the importance of coordinating efforts with NIEM. As Mr.
Hawley noted, "We need to track NIEM and inform them \[about our
activities\] when necessary and be informed when necessary. While NIEM
is broader than Global \[and the justice landscape\], it will be a train
wreck if we don't synch efforts. That may very well mean that 'justice'
needs to add people \[from other\
communities\] . . . ." Dr. Clarke agreed, "A part of governance is
monitoring points of contact, both 'up' (e.g., NIEM and other federal
efforts) and 'down' (e.g., state and local criminal justice information
systems \[CJIS\]) government."

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**[State/Local IT Briefing]{.underline}**

Mr. Kael Goodman, GISWG Registries Subcommittee, highlighted a real-life
application of Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) in the justice
community: a New York City (NYC) kiosk system is slated to process
approximately 25,000 lower-risk probationers' monthly check-ins at
probation offices throughout the five NYC boroughs. Probationers will
verify their identity using a personal code combined with hand geometry
biometrics. After completing a survey using a touch-screen interface,
the kiosk will update a probationer's records and generate a schedule
for their next appearance. The kiosk system is one of four core systems
that the NYC IT team is creating or replacing. The other systems under
development are case management, investigation reporting, and management
reporting. The NYC IT team recognizes there are important
interdependencies between these concurrent initiatives. For example,
kiosk check-in is often one part of a larger supervision plan that can
include home visits, drug tests, and other activities normally tracked
in the case management system. The kiosk system became envisioned as a
"self-service" interface to the case management system in much the same
way that an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) is a self-service interface
with a bank's account management system. A critical challenge will be
developing key functions such as *security, scheduling, notification,
address normalization,* and *reporting* that meet the needs of the kiosk
project but *also* support the concurrently developing case management
and reporting systems. The chosen solution? SOA.

**[Global XSTF Briefing]{.underline}**

Mr. Paul Embley, Global XSTF Chair and GISWG member, updated attendees
on recent developments of the Global Justice XML Data Model (Global
JXDM) and activities of the Task Force. Highlights included:

Successes:

-   Global JXDM, Version 3.0.3, has been released.

-   Recently, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials
    (APCO) International announced the next phase of an effort to
    develop information exchange reference standards for sharing
    information between computer-aided dispatching systems from various
    vendors and with other systems such as alarm and mapping systems. A
    coalition of public and private organizations will collaborate to
    set the standards that are an extension of the preliminary work
    conducted by APCO's Project 36. This new collaborative effort will
    expand to include other critical message formats and content. APCO
    will designate public safety communications and operations
    practitioners to serve on working groups appropriate to the
    exchanges as well as the vetting and resolution processes associated
    with such standards development. The exchanges will be documented
    and published following the recently developed processes for
    defining information exchange document descriptions that employ the
    Global JXDM.

-   The BJA fusion center standards and implementation effort will use
    Global JXDM.

-   The Global JXDM knowledge base and virtual help desk was recently
    launched, allowing users to find information in a tiered manner by
    searching on the topic interest under a "find answers" section,
    submitting a question to the site, or phoning for direct customer
    support.

-   Widening the sphere of participation per Mr. Embley, "We've met with
    emergency services/public safety personnel, and they're anxious to
    play in our world . . . ."

Areas of Focus:

-   Information exchanges.

-   Representation of local, state, and tribal concerns on NIEM
    governance development committee.

-   Naming and design rules: Mr. Embley promised to provide members with
    the latest related document that covers "how we designed and named,
    but doesn't go into governance."

-   Assembling of a Messaging Focus Group to explore a recommended
    messaging architecture.

Challenges:

-   As heavily stressed by Mr. Embley and reiterated by a number of
    attendees, **training** (including a critical need for additional
    instructors) **and technical assistance** (to help address the
    criticism of the Model as "unwieldy") remain ongoing challenges.

**[GISWG Historical Overview]{.underline}**

Dr. Clarke recounted the genesis of the GISWG SOA effort, which began in
2004. Working group effort initially focused on standards activities,
such as the establishment and maintenance of the Justice Standards
Clearinghouse for Information Sharing (JSC or "Clearinghouse") and
developing and implementing the Global JXDM. In 2004, GISWG continued to
focus on standards but also turned considerable attention to the issue
of SOA---its implications, opportunities, and challenges for justice
constituencies. At the September 2004 GAC meeting, ***A Framework for
Justice Information Sharing:  Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)***[^3]
was presented for Committee consideration, including support for the
slate of recommendations outlined in the paper. The SOA document was
unanimously adopted by the GAC via the following resolution:

> The GAC adopts this report (as amended to address privacy and
> information quality issues) of the Global Infrastructure/Standards
> Working Group, titled *A Framework for Justice Information Sharing: 
> Service-Oriented Architecture* (SOA).
>
> Global:

-   Recognizes SOA as the recommended framework for development of
    justice information sharing systems.

-   Endorses forwarding to the U.S. Attorney General the report's action
    agenda for its activities to further the utility of SOA for the
    justice community.

-   Urges the members of the justice community to take corollary steps
    in the development of their own systems.

Having received full support of the GAC, in late 2004 and early 2005,
GISWG members advanced the SOA effort in more tactical ways. This
involved dividing members into the three subcommittees (topics represent
key SOA issues) of Registries, Services, and Standards.[^4] Subcommittee
leaders were charged with developing plans to include recommendations to
four key audiences: state and local policymakers, state and local
technology managers, vendor community, and federal funding agencies. The
subcommittees determined the following mission statements and action
plans:

-   Mission Statement of the GISWG Registries Subcommittee: Within
    Global's SOA effort, the role of the GISWG Registries Subcommittee
    is to clarify the role and use of registries and to help drive
    deployment in the justice community.

    -   Products to be delivered:

        -   Registries Executive Overview[^5]

        -   Registries Requirements

        -   Registries Implementation Strategy

-   Mission Statement of the GISWG Services Subcommittee: Develop a
    process to identify, define, and deploy a consistent set of justice
    services and validate the process through the identification and
    definition of an initial set of justice services.

    -   Products to be delivered:

        -   Justice Reference SOA Executive Overview[^6]

        -   Justice Reference SOA Implementation Road Map

        -   Justice Reference SOA Implementation Strategies

-   Mission Statement of the GISWG Standards Subcommittee: Promote
    utilization of appropriate standards for implementation of SOA in
    the justice environment in support of the broader Global vision of
    justice information sharing through the following activities,
    products, and recommendations:

    -   Identifying applicable standards currently available.

    -   Identifying gaps in available standards based on Global vision.

    -   Based on identification and gap analysis of missing components
        to perform particular functions, identifying appropriate
        mechanism(s) to address.

In early 2005, Dr. Clarke (long-standing GISWG member) accepted the post
of Chief Information Officer and Vice President, Research, for the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC). He also assumed GAC
representation of the NCSC. Given these circumstances (i.e., GAC
membership is a prerequisite for working group leadership) and at the
express recommendation of former GISWG Chairman Steven Correll, Dr.
Clarke was appointed chair of GISWG by the Global Executive Steering
Committee (GESC). Members of the GESC agreed that Dr. Clarke's balance
of in-depth technical knowledge and justice community experience will
serve GISWG in the continued pursuit of SOA.

One of Dr. Clarke's first orders of business was a thorough review of
GISWG structure and activities, including its subcommittees.  He
determined that to best utilize GISWG talents, avoid duplication of
efforts, and address the most pressing SOA issues, the *Standards
Subcommittee* should be reconstituted into the *Management and Policy
Subcommittee.*  This group will subsume the justice information sharing
interagency agreement research task formerly assigned to staff but will
also tackle local, state, and tribal practitioners' pressing
organizational issues that were not being covered by the original three
subgroups.  Standards issues continue to receive excellent leadership
and shepherding by Mr. Embley; additionally, Dr. Clarke has prioritized
his own involvement in Global XSTF efforts, providing an even stronger
bridge between GISWG and Global standards activities.

Dr. Clarke stressed the importance of the M&P Subcommittee by noting,
"When I was working on the Services Subcommittee, we realized 'services'
need to be envisioned in a context---the architecture . . . . Scott Came
drafted a document \[provided to M&P attendees in preparation for the
meeting\] and diagrams to help us figure out how all the pieces fit
together. We realized no one was working on the top management layer."
Hence, this subcommittee was formed. He also reiterated Mr. McCreary's
call for expediency by instructing the group: "We need to bite off
pieces of low-hanging fruit, not wait to make a *perfect* architecture.
Every minute that passes, states are building IT systems. We need to
work fast!" He reminded attendees that the desired outcome from this
meeting was a M&P Subcommittee mission statement and roster of
deliverables.

**[Management and Policy Subcommittee: Determining the
Issues,]{.underline}**

**[Developing a Mission Statement]{.underline}**

***[Determining the Issues]{.underline}***

This discussion and resulting decisions were the true "meat" of the
meeting. The roundtable conversation was framed by Mr. Came's document,
***A View-Oriented Approach to Service-Oriented Architecture***, which
included the often-referenced Architecture Overview Diagram (below):

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.993055555555555in"
height="4.098611111111111in"}

Mr. Came's paper included the following diagram expository narrative:

-   The **Requirements View** establishes *functional requirements* (the
    set of potential and actual functions that the architecture will
    make available to human users and external information systems) and
    *technical requirements* (the set of technical constraints and
    capabilities to be supported by the architecture).

-   The **Design View** identifies *services* and *messages* needed to
    satisfy the functional requirements documented in the requirements
    view and *technology profiles* that identify families of standards,
    approaches, or techniques that together satisfy the technical
    requirements documented in the requirements view.

-   The **Implementation View** documents how the elements of the design
    view are implemented---that is, how the design is mapped into
    artifacts that can actually be deployed, executed, and used in an
    operational environment. Many potential implementations could be
    mapped from a single design; this reference architecture chooses to
    focus on a Web services implementation and so identifies *service
    definitions*, *message definitions*, and *XML vocabularies*.

-   The **Deployment View** documents how the implementation view
    artifacts are physically made operationally available for use and
    identifies *networks, hardware, system software,* and *messaging
    infrastructure* elements.

-   The **Artifact Registry View** provides for an overall strategy and
    mechanism for storing the elements and artifacts from the other
    views, in a way that makes them available to stakeholders to
    consume, as appropriate; it identifies *repositories* for the
    requirements, design, and implementation views but could also house
    artifacts from the other views, as needed.

-   The **Management and Policy View**[^7] (uppermost tier) establishes
    *guidelines* that govern the structure and quality of elements in
    the requirements, design, and implementation views; it also
    documents mechanisms for overall management and governance of the
    architecture. ***[This portion of the diagram was essential to the
    governance discussion.]{.mark}*** To explain this portion of the
    diagram further, consider the following:

> []{.mark}
>
> The **Management and Policy View** contains **three elements**
> designed to document guidelines for artifacts in the Requirements
> View, Design View, and Implementation View.

1.  ***Requirements View Guidelines*** establish criteria for acceptable
    quality of requirements, including:

    -   Guidelines for the proper form of functional requirements,
        including whether use cases will be used, and if so, which use
        case attributes are required to be present.

    -   Guidelines for the proper form of technical requirements.

2.  ***Design View Guidelines*** establish criteria for acceptable
    quality of the domain model, including:

    -   Establishing whether Universal Markup Language (UML) will be
        used to model services and messages.

    -   If UML is used, which diagram types should be used for which
        purposes?

    -   If UML is used, what metadata (if any) should be maintained for
        classes and other elements in the models?

> Design View Guidelines also establish criteria for the proper form of
> Technology Profiles, including what kinds of information should be
> documented. Software engineering literature offers plenty of material
> from which to build Requirements and Design View Guidelines.

3.  ***Implementation View Guidelines*** establish criteria for proper
    form and structure of artifacts in the Implementation View,
    including:

    -   Guidelines for the usage of particular XML vocabularies for
        particular purposes.

    -   Web Services Description Language (WSDL) and XML Schema coding
        style conventions and standards.

    -   Rules for naming elements in WSDL and XML Schemas.

    -   XML Schema design patterns and techniques, including guidelines
        for when refinement/extension are appropriate and how to
        document them.

In addition to these three sets of guidelines, the **Management and
Policy View** includes a **set of artifacts** (represented in textual
documents) that establish policy directives in key areas. These are:

-   ***Service-Level Agreements*** (SLAs) that SOA partners enter into
    to formalize their intent to provide services within the
    architecture and the conditions under which they provide and consume
    them. In addition to active, binding SLAs, the Management and Policy
    View should maintain an SLA template that can be used as the need
    for new agreements arises.

-   ***Development Strategy and Prioritization Policies*** that
    establish heuristics SOA partners use to decide which services to
    build first, as well as other guiding strategic principles of the
    SOA effort.

-   ***Quality Assurance Policies*** that establish mechanisms for
    ensuring that the services offered by all partners satisfy the
    Functional and Technical Requirements fully; these policies may
    address other aspects of testing and quality assurance, such as
    provision of shared testing infrastructure and continuous
    integration.

-   ***Configuration Management Policies*** that establish processes for
    identifying sets of services and other artifacts that are part of
    *releases* of the SOA; these policies seek to ensure that whatever
    is executing in the SOA at a given time be well understood in terms
    of its contents, provided function, and so on.

-   ***Change Management Policies*** that establish processes for
    managing changes to services, message structures, Deployment View
    infrastructure, and other aspects of the SOA on which partners rely
    for successful operation of their businesses. These policies seek to
    ensure that no business disruptions occur due to unplanned or
    uncoordinated changes to key architectural elements

-   ***SOA Governance Policies*** that establish how the partners will
    make changes to the SOA itself.

Considering Mr. Came's excellent springboard material, Mr. Hawley
initiated the SOA governance conversation by requesting attendees to
consider what components are critical to management and policy. What are
the SOA governance issues? Are there tools to address those issues? Dr.
Clarke underscored that participants need not be compelled to "stay
within this diagram."

Subcommittee members' initial reactions[^8] included:

Mr. Embley stated that one thing is missing from the diagram---the
external inputs and influencing factors, such as executive orders,
standards, and so forth.

Mr. Scott Edson suggested the following approach for the subcommittee:
"We can take what we feel is important to SOA governance, add other
components, and make our own 'box' (i.e., Management and Policy View).
For the initial box, the components I see as important are SLAs,
configuration management, and change management."

Mr. Hawley asked: "For clarification purposes---as opposed to NIEM's
governance effort, which is fairly broad---is this effort narrowed to
the sphere of governance (and attendant components) as they relate to
utilization of SOA? This would make it a little more specific than the
usual 'governance' discussion." Dr. Clarke confirmed: "Yes, we are
addressing the governance structure for creating and managing a justice
management architecture; we are creating a framework for people so they
can be successful in their SOA. Technicians are not comfortable
addressing issues up in the 'governance box' \[of the diagram\]. That is
what you \[M&P Subcommittee\] are tasked with doing."

Mr. Goodman stressed that ***business concerns*** need to drive this
governance effort. "We need to address the 'what,' not 'how.' The
technologists can address the 'how.'" Mr. Hawley agreed, but posed a
caveat: "It may be a viable concern for this subcommittee if pieces in
the technology realm can benefit from governance tools or 'best
practices.'"

-   Issue of Terms: "**governance" v. "management and policy**," and
    "**technical governance" v. "political governance"**

    -   Mr. Embley stated his belief that "governance" is very different
        from "management and policy" (which is a "level down from
        'governance'"). This differentiation implies a question of
        subcommittee *scope*.

    -   Dr. Clarke drew a distinction between "**political
        governance" v. "technical governance"**

        -   Participants agreed that most of the Scott Came material
            addressed "technical governance" (or "principles," such as
            defined processes and procedures to implement the lower
            level views, "rules of the road" for SLAs, or version
            control practices based on W3C decisions). "Political
            governance" is a "very different animal" and was generally
            explained as "political structures that decide what an
            agency is going to do, what's important, what we'll focus\
            on . . . . For example, that there ***should*** be an SLA .
            . . . This is a completely different decision than
            determining the automatic way an SLA is negotiated each time
            an exchange happens."

            -   **Mike Ryan strongly suggested enumerating agreed-upon
                principles at the outset of the governance effort**.

        -   **RE: Political Governance**\
            **Resolution: There was consensus that some form of
            high-level treatment of this subject is important**. This
            treatment may simply manifest as a paragraph that:

            -   **Acknowledges the issue's importance** (i.e., as one
                member noted: "I think you have to have the political
                fleshed out before you can address the other issues . .
                . .").

            -   **Leverages/points to relevant efforts** (by SEARCH --
                The National Consortium for Justice Information and
                Statistics \[SEARCH\] and the National Association of
                State Chief Information Officers \[NASCIO\]).

            -   **Highlights general "success criteria"** that "must be
                in place at the political level. Tell them 'what,' but
                not 'how' . . . . Enumerate the things you must have in
                place."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All participants agreed on the **importance of** incorporating
    **collaboration principles** into the SOA management and policy
    process. As Mr. Ryan noted, "That is exactly the type of thing that
    needs to be formalized."

-   Mr. Feagans proffered an alternative approach to determine SOA
    governance scope: from the bottom up. For example, first determine
    the services GISWG wants to provide and then aggregate principles
    from those services to map to the nascent governance structure.

    -   Dr. Clarke and Scott Fairholm, Service Subcommittee Chair, cued
        off this comment, noting a **product from the M&P Subcommittee**
        (for/to the Services Subcommittee) could be a **prioritized
        listing of services** that should be addressed.

-   **Suggested M&P Product**: Mr. Gordon Lansford stressed that a
    **much-needed resource** is a **clearinghouse of "things that are
    successful**: I agree with importance of the political
    \[governance\] layer and the need for tools and with the question of
    'what' to do v. 'how' to do . . . . We've got to address that
    'what'---for example, **what are the 12 things essential to my
    success in implementing SOA?** I can figure out *how* to get it done
    . . . . The challenge is that people have a tendency to tell me
    *how* to do, but **what I need is a road map**." Creation of a road
    map/best practices resource is something the M&P Subcommittee may
    choose to tackle. Dr. Clarke and Mr. Feagans suggested adding
    scenarios to the proposed tool, graphically expressing use cases.

***[Developing an M&P Subcommittee Mission Statement]{.underline}***

The following draft mission statement was presented to the group for
consideration:

> The mission of the Global Infrastructure/Standards Working Group
> Management and Policy Subcommittee is to make recommendations about
> what management and policy processes need to be initiated in support
> of a Justice Reference Service-Oriented Architecture.[^9]
>
> The scope of the processes to consider would include:

-   Implementation strategies

-   Prioritization of implementation steps

-   Reference Architecture Governance, including:

    -   Service-level agreements

    -   Quality assurance

    -   Configuration management

    -   Change management

-   Guidelines for requirements, design, and implementation artifacts

Mr. Hawley commented that, absent addressing the bifurcation of
political v. technical governance, this first draft did a good job of
capturing the salient points of the preceding discussion. He asked
members, "Is this a mission statement we can get behind?"

-   Mr. Ryan suggested enumerating what the scope does *not* include.

-   Mr. Hawley suggested referencing the political governance piece as
    important and noting good work has already been done in this area.
    However, it should be underscored that the interests and energies of
    *this* subcommittee will focus on the development of tools to
    address technical governance issues.

    -   Members agreed, but one participant stressed that wording must
        be carefully chosen: "You don't want business people not to read
        this \[because of the technical emphasis\]."

-   Mr. Ryan suggested additional language regarding subcommittee
    guidance in creating ***principles***. He suggested the group
    leverage the NASCIO's Enterprise Architecture Tool-Kit[^10]
    approach. "You come up with a principle and then a valid counter
    principle." Regarding the placement within the diagram, principles
    would "live" in the key area of "Development Strategy and
    Prioritization Policies." Subcommittee members agreed that
    enumerating principles is a worthwhile endeavor.

-   Mr. Mark Marshall reiterated and emphasized the importance of
    including (perhaps in the mission statement, but certainly as one of
    the subcommittee products) **the establishment and maintenance of a
    repository of best practices, current activities, marketing of
    related efforts, and scenarios/use cases**. He noted this approach
    is being used in the Global fusion center standards piece (a product
    of the Global Intelligence Working Group).

All participants agreed to include the Reference Architecture Governance
components enumerated in the draft mission statement:

-   Service-level agreements

-   Quality assurance

-   Configuration management

-   Change management

Additional discussion on this subject included the following points:

-   **Regarding SLAs**

    -   The subcommittee needs to determine to what level of detail they
        will address this issue.

    -   One possible element regarding SLAs might be response time
        requirements. National consistency would be a critical win.
        Chief Marshall noted, "Any guidance to the field would be
        valuable."

    -   Service availability (percentage of "time up") falls into this
        category, as do security and privacy rules.

    -   Two critical SOA SLA issues are 1) ensuring services are
        available on a defined basis ("so consumers know when they are
        available") and\
        2) ensuring providers can inform consumers when changes are
        made. (Note: This is different than versioning.)

    -   Mr. Came's SLA definition was noted as a good starting point.

-   **Regarding Quality Assurance**

    -   This component will include issues such as auditing, monitoring,
        compliance components, and standards.

    -   Mr. Goodman asked about the viability of a shared infrastructure
        testing and continuous integration provision. Dr. Clarke
        responded that the issue is worth considering, if only to
        highlight as important because "sometimes you just state the
        need and leave it for others to do."

Mr. Hawley asked the group to identify missing elements in the mission
statement or subcommittee plan. The following items were suggested:

-   Emphasis on the importance of the *political* as well as the
    *technical* issues. There is a need to realize that effective SOA
    governance will be situated somewhere between the two realms.

-   Embracing SOA means a major, fundamental shift in the way an
    organization conducts business and implicitly demands organizational
    commitments from an agency. "This will mean a different world view,
    along the lines of 'all the things we've done about IT governance we
    need to reframe in terms of SOA.' We need to acknowledge this major
    shift."

-   Emphasis on collaboration and inclusiveness.

-   Chief Marshall stressed the importance of determining the
    ***audience*** for subcommittee recommendations*.* This aspect will
    likely be defined as the subcommittee's work plan comes together,
    because (as noted by Mr. Hawley) "We have the latitude of what is
    our priority work, and that will drive to whom we target our
    efforts."

**[Immediate Next Steps]{.underline}**

***Management and Policy Subcommittee Resolutions***

**With the formalization of the Management and Policy Subcommittee, the
structure of GISWG is now "set." However, participants will be added to
each of the subcommittees due to attrition of former members and need
for particular expertise.** Staff will assist GISWG leaders in
completing membership rosters.

**Immediate next steps for the Management and Policy Subcommittee are:**

-   **Developing a Mission Statement**

1)  Ron Hawley will produce the first draft.

2)  The overarching term applied to the mission statement language may
    be "governance," not "management and policy."

3)  Due Date: October 7.

-   **Crafting an Executive Overview**

> This document should follow the template established by the *Services*
> and *Registries* overviews.

***[Services Subcommittee]{.underline}***

Next steps for the GISWG Services Subcommittee include:

-   Developing a list of services requested by the field, to determine
    priorities and possible "low-hanging fruit"

1)  Dr. Clarke noted a number of entities (including the Justice
    Information Sharing Professionals \[JISP\]) are working on
    Information Exchange Package Documentation (IEPDs). "My sense is
    that they are addressing the most important first, so we're going to
    have 20−30 key documents across different justice domains we can
    start with because people have 'voted with their feet.' We will
    convey that information---once identified---to give you a list of
    \[prioritized\] services. Then, we can start discussing real-world
    governance issues surrounding those services."

2)  Real-world example of SOA/services: Mr. Goodman noted that the city
    of\
    New York will launch an inmate notification service on September 9
    utilizing a Web services gateway and Global JXDM. "We designed and
    built this, but we have *no* governance, so we will be publishing
    *how* to consume the service." He will share this documentation as
    soon as possible.

-   Crafting a services implementation guide or "road map," (i.e., "What
    are the next 10 practical things you can do to get moving down this
    road.")

    1.  Use case studies and scenarios to "make this real." Canvas other
        industries, including the auto and insurance communities.

    2.  Due Date: spring 2006.

***[Registries Subcommittee]{.underline}***

Complementary activities, of direct benefit to the Registries
Subcommittee, include NCSC's environmental scan of available registries.
(Mr. Feagans suggested contacting Mr. Mike Daconta, DHS, to leverage
existing work: "Mike just went through that exercise and came out with
an extensive report. You could pick his brain and get your hands on that
report.") The activity will precede NCSC's pilot registry project, which
will likely be based on the federated registry model.

***[Next Meeting]{.underline}***

While much of the GISWG subcommittee work will be accomplished remotely
(i.e., using collaborative tools, conference calls), it may be
worthwhile **to convene a full working group meeting in November or
early December**. More information on this event will follow in the near
future.

GISWG M&P Subcommittee Chairman Hawley adjourned the meeting at
approximately 2:30 p.m.

**[Additional Notes---Understanding GISWG in the Larger Context of
Global]{.underline}**:

On August 3, 2005, the GESC convened for a midyear planning session. A
primary activity was the review of the Global working group and task
force business plans and a corresponding roundtable discussion. The
following GISWG issues, actions, and next steps were highlighted at the
meeting:

**Issue: Messaging**

-   **Recommended Action:**

    -   Charge the GJXDM Technical and Training Assistance Committee
        (GTTAC) with forming an ad hoc group of technical experts to
        explore the issues (in a similar fashion to the focus group on
        privacy technology) and make recommendations to BJA.

    -   BJA will determine who tackles the resulting recommendations.

-   **Next Step:** Chairman Clarke and GTTAC will formulate a strategy
    and report to GESC. The timeframe for developing strategy is within
    six months.

**Issue: Naming and Design Rules**

-   **Recommended Action:**

    -   Develop Global JXDM Naming and Design Rules (NDR) that will
        provide local, state, federal, and industry organizations and
        implementers a technical normative description that documents
        what Global JXDM is and what it does.

    -   NDR will provide justice organizations and their Global JXDM
        developers a method for building conformant information
        exchanges with their partner agencies.

-   **Next Step: Global XSTF will vet the current NDR and then
    incorporate comments from vetting for the planned release of Global
    JXDM, Version 3.1, on October 31, 2005.**

**Issue: JSC and SOA Registries**

-   **Recommended Action: (Note: Both these items were voted on and
    unanimously approved by GESC members.)**

    -   Fold JSC activities into the mission of the GISWG Registries
        Subcommittee (natural, evolutionary transition as Global pursues
        SOA, which can occur at any time).

    -   NCSC has agreed to pilot a registry (within 12 months).

-   **Next Step: Chairman Goodman will need to be fully briefed on these
    developments.**

-   **Additional Information: A primary concern with the above
    activities revolves around "institutionalization" of the SOA
    registries (and subsumed JSC). To that end, the Registries
    Subcommittee will be tasked with developing the proof-of-concept
    recommendations on this issue** for presentation to the GESC.

**Issue: Governance concerns, including institutionalizing governance
processes and strategies for developing consistent business rules.**

-   **Action Taken: Formation of GISWG Management and Policy
    Subcommittee.**

-   **Next Step: There will be an inaugural meeting on August 29 in
    Washington, DC, with all GISWG leaders (including subcommittee
    chairs) and members of the Management and Policy Subcommittee**.

**Issue: Global XSTF-related issues, including more explicit tie to
GISWG/Global and the need for additional technical representation on the
group.**

-   **Next Steps:**

    -   Resolutions to the above issues need to be pursued. For example,
        Chairman Bouche posed the question: does the Global XSTF need to
        become a formal part of GISWG, with all that such an association
        entails?

    -   Chairman Clarke will canvas for appropriate technologist
        additions to the group.

**Issue: Development of the "other 20 pieces necessary for SOA" above
and beyond the Global JXDM and registries.**

-   **Next Steps:**

    -   GISWG Chairman Clarke will reach out to other working group
        chairs to determine areas of collaboration.

    -   Because of the almost overwhelming nature of his task
        (shepherding a justice SOA), GAC Chairman Bouche suggested the
        following tack:

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Chairman Clarke will identify those remaining "20 pieces," and
        determine/prioritize the most pressing components.

    -   Based on this enumeration, GISWG (or appropriate group) will
        recommend to BJA the issues that should be pursued and identify
        areas where additional support is critical to moving the SOA
        effort forward.

Because the various Global groups' activities rely on, inform, and
impact on another, it is important for all justice professionals to
understand the Global Initiative's forecast---not just in their
particular content area, but Committee-wide. As such, following is a
high-level overview of the "next steps for Global":

**Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)**

-   Recommend standards and pilot projects to facilitate the
    implementation of SOA in the community.

-   Provide guidance for implementation of SOA that will include
    governance concepts, a road map for implementation, and pilot
    testing of a registry to support SOA.

**Global Justice XML Data Model (Global JXDM)**

-   Continue to make recommendations guiding the expansion of the model
    to meet the needs of jurisdictions in the criminal justice
    community.

-   Reach beyond criminal justice to the public safety and homeland
    security communities to explore expansion of the model to cover the
    needs of those communities. Global will collaborate with developers
    of NIEM to ensure attainment of mutual objectives for increased
    sharing of information.

-   Release recommended NDR in the fall of 2005 to assist jurisdictions
    in their implementation of XML in justice and public safety
    communities.

-   Criminal Intelligence Coordination Council

-   Continue to implement the *National Criminal Intelligence Sharing
    Plan* (NCISP).

-   Collaborate with DHS to produce clear and consistent guidelines that
    enable jurisdictions to implement effective fusion centers.

-   Make recommendations regarding analytical products for use by law
    enforcement agencies.

-   Provide recommendations for standards regarding intelligence analyst
    certification programs.

-   Recommend the implementation of a privacy template to help
    intelligence activities address issues associated with data
    aggregation and analysis.

-   Provide recommendations concerning requirements of local, state, and
    tribal law enforcement agencies for use by federal agencies.

-   Produce an "all crimes" white paper emphasizing the importance of
    addressing information sharing at all levels rather than focusing
    only on terrorism issues.

**Privacy and Information Quality**

-   Publish a Privacy Policy Development Guide for use by the justice
    community.

-   Develop an Information Quality Guide.

-   Provide recommendations concerning the use of technology to aid the
    development and implementation of appropriate privacy policies in
    the justice community.

**Security of Justice Information**

-   Revise current guidelines concerning security practices to address
    new technology threats to the security of justice information.

-   Provide security guidance for the implementation of SOA.

-   Develop recommended security practices for use of wireless
    communications by local, state, and tribal law enforcement.

-   Provide recommendations concerning the need for Federated Identity
    and Privilege Management strategies and solutions.

769171.doc

[^1]: NIEM was initiated as a joint venture between DOJ, DHS, and Global
    with outreach to other departments, agencies, and organizations. The
    project is an interagency initiative to provide the foundation and
    building blocks for national-level interoperable information sharing
    and data exchange. The NIEM focus is on data exchange standards and
    leveraging the work of the Global Justice XML Data Model (Global
    JXDM). More information on NIEM is available at
    [www.niem.org](http://www.niem.org/); more information on Global,
    including the Global JXDM, is available at
    [www.it.ojp.gov/global](http://www.it.ojp.gov/global).

[^2]: Mr. Feagans' PowerPoint presentation is attached to this report.

[^3]: Available at <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=57>.

[^4]: Additionally, Global support staff was charged with investigating
    the role of interagency agreements (including service agreements,
    memorandums of understanding, and interstate compacts) in SOA,
    including compiling examples at any level or scope of
    government---point-to-point, interorganizational, regional,
    national, and so forth. Preliminary work was done on this issue, but
    the project was sunsetted in the recent GISWG refinement.

[^5]: The Registries and Services Subcommittees have completed Executive
    Overviews. Both publications follow the same format: the first
    section outlines the Global Initiative, the middle section provides
    an overview of SOA, and the final section addresses the specific
    topic (i.e., registries and services, respectively). These
    papers---high-level educational pieces aimed at the justice decision
    maker---are available by calling Global staff at (850) 385-0600,
    extension 285.

[^6]: *Ibid.*

[^7]: Regarding its relationships to other views, the Management and
    Policy View provides guidelines for the form, structure, and quality
    of artifacts in all of the other views. In addition, it establishes
    policy for the overall management of the SOA and also relates to
    development work that occurs in all the views.

[^8]: This portion of the discussion was free-flowing and is presented
    in a informal manner to represent the conversational tone of the
    dialogue while still capturing the essential points.

[^9]:  One participant asked for a definition of a **Justice Reference
    Service-Oriented Architecture.\
    **Dr. Clarke answered: "Everything contained in Scott Came's
    diagram."

[^10]: Available at
    [www.nascio.org/nascioCommittees/ea/toolkitDownload.cfm](http://www.nascio.org/nascioCommittees/ea/toolkitDownload.cfm).