October 10, 2002
Results of Ballot M1/02-0193
|
Organization |
YES |
NO |
ABSTAIN |
No Response |
Comments |
|
3M/AiT |
|
X |
|
|
1. |
|
AAMVA |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Apple Computer Inc. |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Assa Abloy ITG |
X |
|
|
|
2. |
|
Authenti-Corp |
|
X |
|
|
3. |
|
Bioscrypt Inc. |
|
X |
|
|
4. |
|
Business Solutions |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Datacard Group |
|
X |
|
|
5. |
|
Fall Hill Associates, LLC |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Farance Inc. |
|
X |
|
|
6. |
|
Identix |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
ID Technology Partners, Inc. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Infineon Technologies |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
International Biometrics Industry Association |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Iridian Technologies |
X |
|
|
|
7. |
|
LaserCard Systems Corp. |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Mississippi Valley State University |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Mitretek Systems |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Motorola Inc. |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
National Security Agency |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
NIST |
|
X |
|
|
8. |
|
Niteo Partners, NEC Solutions |
|
X |
|
|
9. |
|
OSS Nokalva |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Purdue University |
X |
|
|
|
10. |
|
Q.E.D. Systems |
X |
|
|
|
11. |
|
Saflink Corp. |
X |
|
|
|
12. |
|
Sagem Morpho Inc. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Security Industry Association |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Sony Electronics Inc. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol Technologies, Inc. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction Security, Inc. |
|
X |
|
|
13. |
|
Unisys Corp. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
US Department of Defense – DISA |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
US Department of Justice |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
US Department of State |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
US Department of Transportation |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
TOTALS |
23 |
8 |
|
6 |
|
Comments Received:
1. 3M/AiT
3M must vote NO to this proposal
because it believes that it is inappropriate to include some of the terms and definitions
forming the vocabulary as part of the proposal document. If required, they
could form part of a technical contribution, but since changes to these
definitions may be required as part of the work of developing the harmonized
vocabulary standard, they should not be part of the proposal itself. If pages 5
and 6 of M1/02-0193 were removed, then 3M would be happy to vote YES to what
is, in principle, a valid proposal.
2. Assa
Abloy ITG
This vote assumes that the ballot
item addresses the creation of a NP on harmonized vocabulary and that the
"Biometric vocabulary" attachment is illustrative. Specifically, it
is assumed that a "YES" vote does not represent a vote on the
contents of the "Biometric vocabulary" attachment.
3. Authenti-Corp
Authenti-Corp fully supports development of a harmonized
vocabulary. The vocabulary attached to the Proposed NP is
fingerprint focused, and the definitions must be vetted within the
biometric community before being accepted as final. Additional terms
representative of other biometric modalities and processes will also need
to be included. Authenti-Corp perceives that a YES vote endorses the
vocabulary, as written, in the proposed NP. As such, Authenti-Corp votes
NO. Authenti-Corp will vote YES on the proposed NP if the current
definitions in the proposed NP are withdrawn and the harmonized vocabulary
and definitions are determined as a result of the work performed by the
participants of the NP.
4. Bioscrypt
Inc.
Bioscrypt
votes NO if the Biometric Vocabulary is included. If the Biometric
Vocabulary were to be removed, and the Proposal for a New Work Item forwarded
as is, Bioscrypt would vote YES.
5. Datacard
Group
In general
the vocabulary only addresses fingerprints.
Core: Word "pattern" Does pattern
refer to fingerprint type as in arch, loop, whorl or pattern vs minutiae based?
Identification: Replace fingerprint and finger with
biometric. Define
"imaged."
Verification: Replace fingerprint and finger with
biometric.
Pixel: Using term Picture element to
define itself.
6. Farance
Inc.
I would change my No vote to a Yes vote if
the following points were addressed and the following changes were made.
It is important that the vocabulary be
developed with the following points in mind:
- Unlike time past,
terminology is constantly changing.
It will be difficult to complete a terminology standard ***as a single
document*** because the "target keeps moving". A better approach is to take the one of
TC211 and JTC1/SC36/WG1: to create a shell of a document (the boilerplate
wording) and to have the terminology stored and accessible in an on-line
respository (e.g., an ISO/IEC 11179 metadata registry is particularly useful
for this task). With this
approach, the terminology could be updated on a regular, incremental
basis. See
"http://vocabulary.jtc1sc36.org" for further information (click on
Charter in the left column). A
registration authority process might be used to manage the updates to the
terms.
- The terminology must
be multilingual and developed according to ISO 5964 (Guidelines for
Multilingual Thesauri).
Multilinguality should not be confused with
"localization". See the
SC36/WG1 Charter document for guidance on how to distinquish the two.
- The work should become
part of the ISO/IEC 2382 multipart series on Information Technology Vocabulary.
Proposed Specific Changes to the Proposed NP:
OLD:
Title: Information
Technology, Biometrics - Harmonized Vocabulary
NEW:
Title: ISO/IEC 2382 Information
Technology -- Vocabulary -- Part x: Biometrics
OLD: (typo from old copy-paste)
a multi-part
International Standard consisting of ..4... parts
NEW:
a multi-part
International Standard consisting of ..... parts
OLD:
Co-operation and liaison
SC 17, IEC TC 1
NEW:
Co-operation and liaison
SC 17, IEC TC 1, and maintenance activities for ISO/IEC 2382
OLD:
Will the service of a
maintenance agency or registration authority be required? .....NO.....
NEW:
Will the service of a maintenance agency or
registration authority be required? .....UNSURE.....
OLD:
Are there any known
requirements for cultural and linguistic adaptability? .....YES.....
NEW: (Note: National editions
("translations") of standards are a normal part of standards
processing and are not considered cultural and linguistic adaptability. However, there may be some
nation-specific or culture-specific terminology.)
Are there any known
requirements for cultural and linguistic adaptability? .....NO, but see Annex
B.....
OLD:
ISO/IEC Guide 2, ISO/IEC
2382, IEC 60050, IEC 60068-5-2
NEW:
ISO/IEC Guide 2, ISO/IEC
2382, IEC 60050, IEC 60068-5-2, ISO 5964
OLD: (The following is an incorrect
statement. As per JTC1, the
maintenance of each of the parts of 2382 has been assigned to particular
SCs. It makes sense for SC37 to
develop a document of biometric terminology, but it should be included as part
of 2382 -- which SC37 (of course) as the maintenance SC.)
E. Other
Justification: The absence of
maintenance of ISO/IEC 2382 and the demise of JTC 1/SC 1 creates a vacuum for
vocabulary issues within JTC 1/SC 37.
NEW:
E. Other Justification:
REMOVE: (Remove in first paragraph of Annex
A)
... The demise of JTC 1/SC 1
(Vocabulary) has created a vacuum in the sense that SC 31 standards can no
longer refer to a common JTC 1 document for terms and definitions.
OLD:
ANNEX B: Cultural and
Linguistic Adaptability: While
this Harmonized Vocabulary standard will be initially prepared in English,
other National Bodies have already indicated that this standard will be
translated into their native languages. Such native language translations could
also be offered to ISO/IEC.
NEW:
ANNEX B: Cultural and Linguistic Adaptability: It is expected that this standard will
be translated into national editions.
In addition to internationalized terms, other terms may incorporated,
such as terms that are specific to region, nation, culture, or language.
7. Iridian
Technologies
Is the
attached "Biometric Vocabulary" intended to be an initial technical
contribution? If so, should it be labeled as such and its source
identified?
8. NIST
NIST votes NO with comments. NIST desires to see our
comments resolved and the proposed NP forwarded in time for JTC 1 SC 37
consideration at its December 11-13, 2002 Plenary Meeting.
NIST Editorial Comments:
Date of presentation of proposal:
Change to:
To Be
Determined
Secretariat:
Change to:
USA (ANSI)
Cooperation and liaison
Change to:
ISO/IEC JTC 1 Subcommittees 17, 27, 29
Accredited Standards Committee X9 (Financial Services) X9F (Data &
Information Security)
NIST/BC Biometric Interoperability, Performance and Assurance WG
BioAPI Consortium
International Biometric Industry Association (IBIA)
The Biometric Foundation (TBF)
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
IEC TC 1
NIST Substantive Comments:
Delete the attached list of terms titled "biometric
vocabulary." M1 has not yet vetted any of these terms so it is
premature to submit them as examples. Also, a couple of the listings are
acronyms and may not even belong in a vocabulary document.
Under Scope, delete the second sentence: "This standard is to be used as a
normative reference to other ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 37 standards."
This sentence seems innocuous enough but could it is actually too vague and
could mean many things. NIST would prefer discussing the concept of how
to take advantage of this vocabulary project with respect to all the
other expected SC 37 standards projects at the next M1 meeting. This will
permit the US NB to better discuss our proposed NP contribution at the SC
37 meeting.
9. Niteo
Partners/NEC
Niteo
Partners, and NEC Company, votes NO on the enclosed ballot. While this NP
has value, we believe that a harmonized vocabulary should consider the
biometrics standardization activities and related vocabularies being considered
in ISO JTC1 SC27, and ISO TC68 SC2. Should the co-operation and liaision
statement in this NWI be changed to include these other important pieces
of work, we will change our vote to affirm this piece of work
10.
Purdue
University
I also agree with Frank (ed. Farance Inc.) on some of
these issues. I think it should be a working document, I thought that it would
be of some work in progress from the
NIST groups (ed. NIST/BC Biometric Interoperability, Performance and Assurance
Working Group - BCWG) as well.
11.
QED
Systems
Comments: Page 3 ANNEX A Purpose and justification should say "The demise of JTC 1/SC 1 (Vocabulary) has created a vacuum in the sense that SC 37 standards can no longer refer to a common JTC 1 document for terms and definitions.
Also the proposer is supposed to nominate a project leader/editor. I (ed. – Craig Harmon) am willing to volunteer for that role.
12. Saflink
This work should be harmonized with similar work within the BCWG. (We only need one vocabulary!) It should also include a survey of recognized literature on the topic of biometrics and attempt to include the most widely accepted and worded definitions.
13. Transaction Security, Inc.
The document contains an item at the end entitled
"Biometric Vocabulary" with what looks like definitions associated
with certain terms. In my opinion the definitions are far too biased towards
fingerprint solutions (see the definition for "Identification",
"Verification" and "Resolution"). I would vote YES if this
addendum were to be excluded from the document. As promised, I will send you a
document, which became an accredited ANSI Biometric Vocabulary standard
sometime in 1988 (I think) but has now lapsed.