NENA Standard for NG 911 GIS Data Model

[AdamLodge]

Has anyone created a file geodatabase or xml schema document that, to the extent possible, implements the full data model defined in NENA NG911 for GIS standard?  

https://dev.nena.org/higherlogic/ws/public/download/9828/20161206_NG9-1-1%20GIS%20Data%20Model_PubRv... 

If so, I (and perhaps others) would find it hugely helpful to get access to that in order to save the time it will take to define the feature classes.

Many thanks,

Adam

[ChrisDonohue__GISP]

I'm also curious if someone has developed this (though I don't have an immediate need).  A year ago when we had a related thread on NextGen 911 it seemed like there was not alot of action by anyone to implement it yet.  Maybe that has changed?

Next Generation 911 (NextGen) rollout?  

Addressing 

Chris Donohue, GISP

[brianbond]

I know that City of Yuma, Arizona has created a full file geodatabase data model.  I do not know that the city is willing to share it to outside users yet since the NENA GIS data model standards has not yet be finalized but reach out to the GIS administrator within the information technology department.

Brian

[JonHall]

NENA published the data model last month, 6/16/2018. 

NENA-STA-006.1-2018

https://www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/standards/nena-sta-006_ng9-1-1_gis_dat.pdf 

I've read this thread before, and revisited today because it's time to create the schema. I found an empty FGDB schema at Montana's website: ftp://ftp.geoinfo.msl.mt.gov/Data/NonSpatial/NG911/NENA_NG911_GIS_Data_Model.zip 

[JonHall]

Montana's schema is a start, it contains the "required" layers, but not all the "strongly recommended" and "recommended" layers. The spatial reference needs to be reset to WGS84 (EPSG4326) on the first layer I checked. No other coordinate system is acceptable.

[JoeBorgione]

That looks like NENA published a pdf document, not an actual model.  Having left the 9-1-1 industry for greener pastures, it still amazes me how much  buzz there is about NG 911 but so little actual implementation, not to mention standardization. 

[BillFox]

I do not see any COGO, GPS or Editor Tracking attributes in their GIS standard.

[PeterSchoenfield]

Our office here at Lake County, Illinois took a look at Montana's empty FGDB and found numerous discrepancies compared to the June 16, 2018 published specs by NENA. Three of us have painstakingly proofed and made corrections, including the projection which was in the southern hemisphere for some reason. We have also added all of the optional tables and fully created all of the possible domains. Attached below is an Esri XML Workspace Document. Note that some domains such as County, PostalCode, and PostalCommunityName are empty, we will leave those up to you to fill in for your locality. Also note that the specs do not provide names for domains and many domains are shared among several fields. Where possible a generic domain name was used following the Montana lead to allow sharing among the fields. If you find any errors or omissions, please reply to this post.

Enjoy!

Peter Schoenfield, GISP and the Lake County, Illinois GIS Staff

[JonHall]

Peter-

Thanks! I had started this effort on my own, but hadn't finished. 

-Jon Hall

Communications 911 GIS Specialist

Little Rock Police Department - Communications

[PeterSchoenfield]

Thanks Jon. We just wanted to get something out there that matched the NENA standard. Entities will no doubt change it up for their own use. Kudos to Kansas and everyone else who started working on this several years ago! It would be interesting to hear about any issues the early adopters have run into.

Peter