SUMMARY OF THE 1998 

NIST FINGERPRINT DATA INTERCHANGE WORKSHOP 

On September 22-24, 1998, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 

cooperation with the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) division's Advanced 

Technologies Unit (ATU) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sponsored the Fingerprint 

Data Interchange Workshop. The workshop was held at NIST's headquarters in Gaithersburg, 

MD. There were 180 registered participants representing ten countries, nine federal agencies, 24 

states, and numerous local agencies and private companies. 

The purpose for convening the workshop was to review the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) standard titled "Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint Information" 

(ANSI/NIST-CSL 1-1993). This review was intended to perform maintenance on the current 

version of the Standard and to discuss the incorporation of new ideas and technologies into 

future versions. After opening remarks were presented, selected implementations were reviewed. 

Existing shortcomings associated with the standard were presented, and potential solutions were 

identified and discussed. As a result of the workshop, two new Type-1 record fields were 

developed, three additional record types were created, and recommendations for future 

technology enhancements to the standard were offered. These recommendations included data 

security measures and a description of a series of steps to be followed in order to convert the 

ANSI standard to an International Standards Organization (ISO) standard. The remainder of this 

report provides a summary of each major topic discussed during the workshop. 

Opening Remarks 

Shukri Wakid, director of NIST's Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) presented opening 

remarks at the workshop. He emphasized the need for Automated Fingerprint Identification 

System (AFIS) and livescan vendors to work together to capitalize on the use of the fingerprint 

biometric for both identification and verification applications. He also predicted that in the 

future, digital signatures including the Digital Signature Standard (DSS), the Rivest-ShamirAdelman (RSA) algorithm, and elliptical encryption methods would be an important part of the 

fingerprint capture and identification process. Doug Domin, the FBI's Deputy Assistant Director 

of Operations in West Virginia, followed Wakid and echoed his comments on the need for 

continued cooperation between the AFIS and livescan vendors. Domin also highlighted the 

progress of the major FBI projects to be deployed within the next ten months. These include the 

November 1998 start of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to support the 

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. Also included are the July 99 online start of 

the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), and the July 99 online start 

of the National Crime Information Center-2000 (NCIC-2000) system. For all of these efforts, 

interoperability and transmission standards are required. His concluding remarks addressed the 

fact that the FBI is collaborating with West Virginia University on biometrics R&D and other 

forensic topics. 

History of the ANSI/NIST Standard 
 

Before discussing specific items relating to the Standard, Tom Roberts of the FBI summarized 

the history of the development of Fingerprint Data Exchange standards. He presented a short 

review of the structure and use of the image-based fingerprint standard approved in 1993 and the 

mugshot addendum approved in 1997. 

User Experiences Panel 

Six different agencies discussed their experiences with implementing the standard. Brian 

O'Riordan of the UK's Police Information Technology Organization (PITO) stated that the 

standard had provided the UK's operation with specific rules for encoding information items. 

These items had previously been encoded using one of many different alternatives. Of the 

several recommendations he presented, the one of primary importance was that backward 

compatibility be retained. 

Speaking for the FBI, Tom Roberts described the Electronic Fingerprint Image Print Server 

(EFIPS) that is currently used to supply fingerprint cards to the IAFIS. These cards are generated 

from electronic images transmitted to the FBI. He went on to explain that the FBI's IAFIS is 

based on the use of a program of standards and specifications. The Type-1 and Type-4 records as 

defined by the standard, have been implemented. Image compression is done in accordance with 

the Wavelet Scalar Quantization (WSQ) algorithm that was adopted during the development of 

the 1993 data exchange standard. The user-defined Type-2 record is described and specified by 

the current FBI Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Specification (EFTS). The Image Quality 

Specification (IQS) addressing fingerprint imaging equipment components is included as an 

appendix to the EFTS. This version of the EFTS and future versions shall all retain backward 

compatibility. 

Larry Wilke presented a summary of the AFIS and livescan equipment operating in North 

Carolina. Challenges faced with EFIPS submissions were outlined including the need to upgrade 

to Version 6.2 of the EFTS. Mike Lesco described similar problems that are faced in Texas and 

their need to upgrade to Version 6.2 of the EFTS. In addition to live scan equipment, Texas also 

has two different AFIS vendors in the state. 

Jack Meagher from New York outlined the state's workload processing priorities and their 

version of the Type-2 record that contains the FBI's EFTS descriptions for fields. He also stated 

that one of NY's goals is vendor independence, so that any vendor wanting to do business with 

the state must interface with existing booking stations. 

Isam Saleh concluded the panel discussion by presenting an overview of Ohio's workload and 

problems encountered with interfacing different vendors' AFIS and livescan equipment. The use 

of the ANSI/NIST Standard provided solutions to their data exchange problems between local 

and state offices. Next year Ohio will also be using the FBI's EFIPS for submitting transactions. 

A brief question and answer period concluded this implementation panel discussion. This was 

followed by a technical session led by Mike McCabe to address specific topics contained in the 

ANSI/NIST standard. He began the session by presenting an overview of the procedures or steps 

to be followed during the development of an ANSI standard. After receiving ANSI approval for 
 

 

 

a standard, the standard must be reviewed every five years and a decision made to reaffirm, 

modify, or withdraw the standard. This workshop is the first step in the review process. 

Version of the Standard 

During the planning of the workshop, a ground rule was established such that any modifications 

to or a new version of the ANSI/NIST Standard created shall be backward compatible. Existing 

implementations would not require upgrades to retain the current operational capabilities. 

However, use of modifications developed and new features created during the workshop will 

probably require system upgrades. The version/revision number of the standard being used is 

contained in field 1.02. Currently, the value for this field is "0200". The new version/revision to 

reflect changes and additions will be "0300". 

Domain Name Field 1.13 (DOM) 

With the exception of the record length and the IDC fields, the Type-2 record contains all userdefined textual fields and descriptions. Many agencies in the U.S. adhere to the FBI EFTS field 

definitions. As additional fields are required by specific agencies, these user-specific field tags 

have been registered and reserved with the FBI's ATU. Use of this domain approach for uniquely 

identifying field contents, avoids tag numbers with multiple definitions. However, there are 

implementation domains that do not strictly adhere to the EFTS. For example, the UK and 

Interpol have developed their own Type-2 record implementations tailored for their 

communities. As a solution to this situation, a proposal was made for the creation of an optional 

field to indicate the source or domain of the Type-2 implementation. After considerable 

discussion, consensus was achieved to create a new Domain Name Field 1.13 (DOM). As an 

optional field, if present, it shall appear only once in a transaction and shall contain the Domain 

Name. An optional second subfield separated by the {US} character may be present to indicate a 

unique version of the implementation. For example, the use of the FBI's implementation may 

appear as "1.13:EFTS{US}06R2" to indicate the use of the current version 06R2. Responsibility 

for the registry and maintenance of domain names was left unresolved. However, responsibility 

for maintenance of the field tags and meanings within a domain was assigned to the owner of 

each domain. 

Date & Time Field 1.14 (GMT) 

The 1993 version of the standard describes the format to be used to contain the date in Field 

1.05. It also states that the "complete date shall not exceed the current date." A problem may 

occur when a transaction is submitted to an agency located several time zones away. For 

example, a query submitted from California to Washington, DC crosses three time zones. If the 

query is submitted toward the end of the day, it is possible that the return reply from an eastern 

time zone may have a date that is one day later than the current date in California. To remedy 

this potential problem, a proposal was submitted to eliminate the restrictive wording regarding 

the date, and optionally reference the date and time in terms of universal Greenwich Mean Time 

(GMT). Field 1.14 will be added to the standard to contain the GMT. It shall be an optional field. 

If used, this field shall concatenate the date with the GMT and conclude with a "Z" using the 

form of "CCYYMMDDHHMMSSZ{GS}". 
 

 

 

 

 

Priority Field 1.06 (PRY) 

This optional field designates the urgency of a transaction for which a response is desired. 

Currently, the range of values is from "1" (highest priority) to "4" (lowest priority). The default 

value is "4" if the field is not present in the transaction. A proposal was made and consensus 

achieved to expand the priority range to allow for nine (9) levels of priority with a "1" being the 

most urgent priority and the default value being user-defined. The justification for this was to 

protect AFIS systems from user saturation of high priority transactions. 

Field Number Lengths 

When the current version of the standard was developed, it was believed that the tag numbers for 

Type-1, and Type-9 records would require no more than two digits to contain 99 fields and that 

the Type-2 record would require no more than three digits for 999 fields. However, due to the 

manner agencies have already assigned tag numbers to fields, these numeric limitations are no 

longer practical. After a discussion, consensus was achieved to relax the existing numeric 

restrictions on the tag length. All of the digits between the "." and the ":" shall be interpreted as 

an unsigned integer field number. This implies that a field number of "2.000000123:" is 

equivalent to "2.123:". It was further agreed that all tagged field numbers would be limited to a 

maximum of nine digits. 

Ordering of Fields 

A proposal was made to eliminate the requirement in Section 6.1 that requires fields appearing in 

each Type-1, Type-2, Type-9 and Type-10 record to be numerically ordered. It was agreed that 

the ordering restriction for the tagged fields could be eliminated, provided that the record length 

and IDC fields remain as the first two fields. Field ordering would still be required for fixed 

binary fields belonging to image records (Type-3 through Type-8 records). 

Information Separators 

The information separators ( {US}, {RS}, {GS}, and {FS} ) are used to separate data items. 

Currently, only one separator may be present between any two data items. Adjacent separator 

combinations such as "{US}{RS}" are illegal. This restriction has caused implementation 

problems when data fields or items in a transaction were missing or optional. This current rule 

forces the insertion of dummy data. A proposal was submitted to eliminate this restriction. After 

a discussion period, the general conclusion reached was that elimination of this restriction should 

not pose problems for existing systems. Consensus for eliminating the separator restriction was 

achieved. It was also agreed that a field requiring "n" data items shall also be required to contain 

"n-1" separator characters, as in the case of parallel arrays. 

Limit on Type-2 Records 

According to Table 2 in the current version of the Standard, only one Type-2 logical record is 

allowed for any transaction. Since the creation of the 1993 standard, applications have been 

developed that require multiple Type-2 records. The exchange of rap sheets is an example of 
 

 

 

 

 

such an application. After some discussion a proposal was submitted and passed to adjust the 

wording in the Standard to imply that the table record limits are exemplary and specific 

applications should dictate the maximum number of Type-2 records that may be present. 

Limit on IDC Numbers 

The current version of the Standard limits the range of the Image Designation Character (IDC) 

numbers from 0-17. As new record types are appearing for imagery other than tenprint 

fingerprints, the range of IDC numbers must be expanded. A proposal was made and passed to 

eliminate the restriction of IDC numbers. 

Merging of Standards 

In 1997, an addendum to the ANSI/NIST-CLS 1-1993 standard that addressed Mugshots (facial 

images), and Scars, Marks, and Tattoos (SMT) was developed and approved by ANSI. The 

addendum, that was based on the 1993 standard, created a tagged field Type-10 record used for 

formatting both descriptive and image information data in the same record type. Currently, this 

addendum titled Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial, & SMT Information is 

an ANSI standard with the designation of ANSI/NIST-ITL 1a-1997. A proposal was made and 

accepted to merge the fingerprint standard and its mugshot addendum into a single standard and 

document. 

International Character Sets 

Mike Rubinfeld of NIST highlighted aspects of using common character sets for the standard's 

textual fields. Although the ISO Latin-1 character set would accommodate many languages, it 

still is not inclusive enough. The 16-bit ISO/IEC Unicode is a possible solution but requires 

twice the storage. An ad hoc group of volunteers was appointed to study the problem. Members 

of this group are Bill Ledeen, Peter Higgins, Wally Briefs, Frederick Biarnes, Bonny Scheier, 

and Isam Saleh. Some of the group met with Rubinfeld after the workshop was over and 

discussed some basic ideas. A written report of the approaches discussed will be generated. 

Type of Transaction Considerations 

Scott Blanchard, from the Michigan State Police, gave a presentation on the types of transactions 

to be used and administrative aspects to be considered when submitting transactions to remote 

systems and agencies. Several issues were discussed including the amount of information 

required to be present in the transaction, and the party responsible for performing verifications of 

candidate hits. A survey was presented for the users to complete and return to NIST. No 

Standard's proposals or recommendations were presented during this session. 

Rap Sheets 

John Loverude from the Illinois State Police presented an overview of the use of the ANSI/NIST 

Standard for the rap sheet application. Multiple Type-2 records for multi-state offenses will be 
 

 

merged into a single file. At this time it is anticipated that five states will participate in an 

exchange pilot in the spring of 1999. 

Gray Backgrounds for Mugshots 

Mike Rubinfeld began the second day of the workshop by presenting the results of an experiment 

performed at NIST. This work studied the relationships of different digital cameras, lighting, and 

clothes color on the captured gray background used in mugshots. Calibrated test samples of 

varying shades of gray were captured and their red, green, and blue (RGB) component values 

measured, recorded, and analyzed. One conclusion developed from the study is that equal values 

of RGB components from the recorded background are hard to achieve. It was also determined 

that recorded 8-bit values for the RGB components of an 18% gray background will be in the 

range of 105 to 135 depending on the type of camera used, lighting, etc. When capturing 

mugshots, a neutral gray target such as the Kodak gray card should be used as part of the 

calibration procedure. 

Remote Submission of Latent Prints 

Tom Hopper from the FBI's ATU discussed the status of the project for the remote submission of 

latent fingerprints. He began with a historical perspective in which he credited Ray Moore with 

the original concepts of characteristic and minutiae encoding as described by the ANSI/NISTCSL 1-1993. IAFIS operation is scheduled for July 1999. Submission of remote latent searches is 

targeted for the end of 1999. The goal of the project will be to perform fully reliable latent 

searches in a vendor-neutral, lights-out environment. Hopper proposed the use of the Type-9 

logical record to accomplish this. 

The first 12 fields of the Type-9 record in the 1993 Standard, describe the encoding of the 

minutiae data. Field 4 contains an "S" if the minutiae data is encoded in accordance with the 

manner described in the Standard. Otherwise a "U" will be used to indicate the minutiae data is 

encoded in a user or vendor-specific manner. Hopper's approach proposes to partition the Type-9 

record into registered blocks of tagged fields reserved for each specific vendor's feature vector. 

The tagged fields would contain the minutiae and other characteristic data encoded in a manner 

unique to the AFIS of the particular vendor owning that block of fields. At this time, Lockheed 

Martin Corporation (LMC), Cogent Systems Inc, and Printrak International have submitted their 

requirements for tagged fields that describe the feature data that each respective system needs to 

properly search their system's database. Since the meeting, Sagem-Morpho has also responded 

with their requirements. Only one major vendor has yet to respond with a list of their required 

data fields. 

A discussion comparing the relative merits of submitting images for remote latent searches, 

versus submitting feature-based data for searches followed. The general conclusion was that for a 

few latent prints, the images would be appropriate, but for the majority of work, feature-based 

data would provide better performance. 

The discussion then turned to progress in research. Hopper stated that research and development 

efforts were taking place at NIST. These efforts are aimed at exploring better minutiae detection 
 

methods, improving the reliability of encoding features, and providing latent examiners with 

effective, efficient, and quality results. As in the past, NIST results will be made readily 

available to everyone who is interested. 

Steve Meagher of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section (LFPS) concluded the discussion stating 

that an important piece of data missing is a reasonable set of test data to study the performance of 

systems. He went on to say that the FBI and LMC has established a latent print test database 

consisting of four data sets with 300 latent prints and their rolled mates. Minutiae from this 

database were not detected by computerized means. Experienced latent examiners carefully 

selected the minutiae from the fingerprint images. This database can be used for testing 

algorithms and dissimilar systems to determine if the appropriate performance and accuracy 

results are achieved. NIST has agreed to publish these data sets in a CD format for testing by 

vendors and others as soon as the data is released from the FBI's IAFIS program office. 

Image Record Formats 

Mike McCabe began this session by reviewing the currently available image record formats and 

field descriptions contained in the 1993 Standard. He pointed out that the Type-3 through Type-6 

image records were fixed format and contained fixed length fields used to exchange fingerprint 

image data. The Type-7 image record was intended to contain image data not specified 

elsewhere in the standard. Its format was strictly user-defined. In 1997, the Type-10 tagged field 

record for Mugshots and Scar, Mark, and Tattoo (SMT) information was added as an addendum 

to the standard. This signaled a break from the fixed format image record concept previously 

specified. Use of the variable size tagged fields to contain the data allows both ASCII textual 

data and binary image data to be contained in the same record. 

This tagged field format can also be used to exchange fingerprint data. As the need for higher 

resolution images becomes more apparent, this tagged field concept can be used for exchanging 

image data scanned at resolutions exceeding 19.69 pixels per millimeter (ppmm) or 500 pixels 

per inch (ppi). To accomplish this, two new record types were proposed. The first record (Type13) would be used for the exchange of latent image data. A second record (Type-14) would be 

used to exchange known, rolled or plain impression images. Similar fields would be present in 

each record type to identify the image type, resolution, color depth, etc. A recommendation was 

also presented to leave record Type-3 through Type-8 as currently specified, including scanning 

resolution. 

The final point brought out during this session was that the ANSI/NIST Standard fingerprint file 

structure together with the tagged field format record could provide a means of exchanging 

various other types of forensic data using a single common format and structure. Suggestions 

have already been made for developing additional tagged field image record types covering 

crime scene photos, ballistic images, iris scans, and booking station voice prints. Such record 

types would be developed as interest dictated, and time and resources became available. Use of 

this standard for other applications was met with very strong opinions, both for and against the 

idea. The argument against the recommendation was that fingerprint practitioners should not be 

making decisions on disciplines outside their expertise. In response to this, it was suggested that 

a series of related standards and records could be developed by experts involved in those specific 
 

 

disciplines without the representation of fingerprint personnel. Many of the participants believed 

that the forensic community could benefit from a common structure for exchanging images. 

Latent Print Discussion Panel 

The panel consisted of Ed German from the Army Crime Lab, Brian O'Riordon from the UK's 

PITO, Mike Fitzpatrick from the Illinois State Police (ISP), and was chaired by Charles Wilson 

from NIST. Ed German presented the Technical Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, 

Study and Technology (TWGFAST) position in which he described the three levels of 

fingerprint analysis to be considered. For the first two levels of pattern identification and 

minutiae detection, a scanning rate of 19.69 ppmm (500 ppi) is quite adequate. Increasing the 

scan rate will not improve results acquired from the AFIS matching. However, level 3 analysis of 

pores, ridge edges, and details require data capture at a higher scanning rate. Level 3 analysis is 

required when traditional minutiae are not available for examination. TWGFAST recommended 

that the scanning resolution be raised to 47.24 ppmm (1200 ppi) for the existing Type-4 records 

and that a new 47.24 ppmm (1200 ppi) record format be defined for latent images. Decreasing 

cost of storage and increasing transmission rates are the justifications for this proposed 6-fold 

increase in captured data. All new systems acquired in the future would be required to have a 

resolution of 47.24 ppmm (1200 ppi) although existing systems would be 'grandfathered' at 19.69 

ppmm (500 ppi). 

Brian O'Riordan stated that the current Standard facilitates the majority of fingerprint work, 

although a level 3 analysis does requires a 39.37 ppmm (1000 ppi) scanning resolution. He 

recommended that the Type-4 record remain unchanged and that a new optional high resolution 

record be created to accommodate level 3 analysis. He also recommended that investigations be 

conducted aimed at determining requirements for level 3 details. 

Mike Fitzpatrick supports the TWGFAST position but disagrees with the migration plan. It is 

also his opinion that Level 3 poroscopy analysis may require even a higher scanning resolution 

than 47.24 ppmm (1200 ppi). He recommended that the Type-4 and Type-7 records remain 

unchanged and that new higher resolution fingerprint image records be defined. He further 

proposed that image quality specifications be established for the higher resolution records and 

tests be designed and performed to observe the effects of the higher resolution on the WSQ 

compression algorithm. 

A discussion period followed the presentations. Due to a previous commitment, Steve Meagher 

from the FBI replaced Ed German for the remainder of this session. Questions and comments 

posed addressed different aspects of a higher scanning resolution for fingerprint images. The 

proposal recommended by TWGFAST was to increase the scanning resolution for tenprint and 

latent work to 47.24 ppmm (1200 ppi). It became apparent that there was little support for this 

recommendation. Therefore, Wilson proposed the motion to retain the Type-4 record as currently 

specified with no increase to the current scanning resolution of 19.69 ppmm (500 ppi). This 

motion was passed by a large majority of the workshop attendees. Wilson then proposed the 

creation of a new high resolution Type-13 record for latent work and a high resolution Type-14 

record for tenprint image records. No scanning resolution was specified for either record type. 

The scanning resolution used would be specified in one or more fields within the record itself. 
 

This motion was also passed by a large majority of attendees. The exact tagged data fields 

required for the records will be determined after the workshop and put in the draft of the standard 

that will be circulated for comment. It was pointed out that the decisions made at this workshop 

would be used to update the next draft of the standard. That draft shall be circulated for an 

official canvass vote before it receives ANSI approval as a standard. Some additional discussion 

regarding the value to be used for the higher resolution followed. The session ended when 

everyone agreed that, at this time, agreement could not be reached on the value to be used for the 

higher resolution. 

Palm Print Discussion Panel 

The panel consisted of Ken Moses who chaired the panel, Dave Larabee from the United States 

Postal Service (USPS), Steve Meagher from the FBI, and Mike Fitzpatrick from the ISP. Moses 

began by emphasizing the importance of palm prints in criminal investigations. In 1996, the 

International Association for Identification (IAI) approved a standard for palm print capture. As 

this has become an industry de facto standard, he proposed to incorporate it as part of the ANSI 

fingerprint standard. The IAI standard specifies the continuous capture of the 13.97 cm (5.5 inch) 

wide by 20.32 cm (8.0 inch) long area from the heel of the palm to the fingertips. The scan 

resolution was set at 19.69 ppmm (500 ppi) and the pixels are to be recorded to 8 bits of 

grayscale. 

Larabee described the parts of the palm, emphasizing the importance of the "writers palm" which 

is the 4.45 cm (1.75 inch) by 12.7 cm (5.0 inch) area on the side of each palm opposite the 

thumb. In a study performed, 60% of all cases had the writer's palm as the most significant 

factor. He also stated that the continuous scan portion of the IAI standard was a point of 

contention. Some vendors want to meet this requirement by using two separate scans of the palm 

and overlapping them to form a single image. 

Meagher presented the TWGFAST recommendations for palm prints. TWGFAST views palm 

prints as a latent application and proposes that the ANSI standard define a new record type for 

the palm print. The scanning resolution should be 47.24 ppmm (1200 ppi) with each pixel 

quantized to an 8-bit grayscale value. The WSQ algorithm, using a 15:1 compression ratio, 

should be used to store the data obtained from the FBI/IAI palm print card. 

Fitzpatrick basically supported the IAI standard. He recommended that the palm print have its 

own record types for both a 19.69 ppmm (500 ppi) scan rate and also a higher scan rate. He 

stated that palm print standards were required to direct the vendors and to represent user needs. 

In the discussion that followed, the main issues debated were the maximum and minimum sizes 

of the palm prints and whether the palm needed to be continuously scanned or if two scans could 

be used and combined to appear as a continuous scan. The proposal that was eventually adopted 

called for the addition of a new logical record (Type-15) for exchanging palm print information. 

The new tagged image record would be comprised of a full palm print image and a writer's palm 

print image. Each image shall have a minimum scanning resolution of 19.69 ppmm (500 ppi). 

The Type-15 record would also provide fields for specifying increased resolution. The maximum 

dimensions of the full palm image shall be 13.97 cm x 20.32 cm (5.5 in x 8.0 in), and the writers 
 

 

 

 

palm shall be no larger than 4.45 cm x 12.7 cm (1.75" by 5.0"). The content of the images will 

dictate the minimum size. The exact tagged data fields required for the palm print record will be 

determined after the workshop and put in the draft of the standard to be circulated for comment. 

IAFIS Issues 

Tom Roberts presented an overview and current status of the FBI's IAFIS program. He reviewed 

the goals of the program that included the development of an infrastructure and standards that 

would enable a two-hour turnaround for electronic criminal ten-print submissions, add a latent 

capability, and improve digital image quality. The ANSI/NIST data exchange standard, the 

Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Standard (EFTS) including its Image Quality Specification 

(IQS) appendix, and the Wavelet Scalar Quantization (WSQ) specification are the three main 

documents being used to accomplish the program goals. Roberts then described the five core 

IAFIS services to be offered. A brief question and answer period followed. 

Digital Signatures 

Jim Foti from NIST started the final day of the workshop by presenting a tutorial on securing 

fingerprint and booking station data with digital signatures. He explained the need for digital 

signatures and their basic operation. A method of applying them to the exchange and storage of 

fingerprint and other booking station data was also described. He concluded his presentation by 

giving an overview of the applications of digital signatures and the products implementing 

digital signatures. As this was designed as an informational tutorial, there were no 

recommendations or proposals submitted at this time regarding the application of digital 

signatures and fingerprints. However, the topic will be studied and recommendations may 

eventually be proposed. 

International Standards Considerations 

Michael Hogan from NIST gave the final presentation of the workshop. He provided an 

overview of international standards issues that must be considered in order to take the current 

ANSI/NIST fingerprint data exchange standard and convert it to an ISO standard. He highlighted 

the political consideration and obstacles to overcome during the fast track process of converting 

the ANSI standard to an ISO standard. 

Conclusion 

Major accomplishments of the workshop included the use and creation of Domain Name Field 

1.13, and the Date & Time Field 1.14 in terms of Greenwich Mean Time. Minor fixes for other 

issues concerning the standard were discussed and consensus for solutions achieved. Tagged 

record formats were introduced for processing latent, tenprint, and palm print image records. 

These new record types specify a minimum of 19.69 ppmm (500 ppi) with a mechanism 

available to specify the use of higher scan resolutions. 

In order to arrive at a single numeric target value for a higher scanning resolution, Dave Gavin 

from Texas shall bring the question of developing such a recommendation for a specific higher 
scanning resolution to the November meeting of the FBI's Advisory Policy Board (APB). Work 

will also be initiated for the application of digital signatures at booking stations and for stored 

identification data. The possibility of converting the ANSI standard to an ISO standard will be 

studied which will include the use of international character sets for textual data. Finally, the 

fingerprint and mugshot standards will be merged and represented as a single document in the 

future. The decisions made and agreements reached during this workshop will be incorporated 

into the 1993 standard and the first draft of the next version of the standard will be available for 

comment early in 1999.