Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Defining Search Modality in Search Based transactions #21

Open
epcondon opened this issue Dec 1, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Defining Search Modality in Search Based transactions #21

epcondon opened this issue Dec 1, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
Pending INSIWG Review To be reviewed at the INSIWG

Comments

@epcondon
Copy link

epcondon commented Dec 1, 2021

At the previous working group, the driver for change to the standard was to build out in support of additional biometrics (e.g. face and DNA With the expansion and support of multiple biometrics in a NIST based search request , the current v6.0 does not have a mechanism to describe what search modalities you would like to be happen when you send in a transaction like a CPS. This is important where the transactions are being used in a b2b context. You may have a capture for border purposes that has face and fingers but want a lights out response and expect that it is therefore based on a fingerprint to fingerprint search only. We also need to cater for a multi modal search where the output from the different search modalities are used to improve the search outcome (and confidence). This implies potential new data fields in the User-defined Descriptive Text Record/ Type 2 equivalent area. It would be prudent to also clarify what the behaviour is (the default) if this field were not included. Given that future use cases may also follow the current Prum model (i.e. verification done by the sender), this would also support that, as not all organisation have facial matching system but may still have facial stores so can share a facial image but not deal with a facial search response with multiple candidates of different identities.

@Jeremy-M-Int Jeremy-M-Int added the Pending INSIWG Review To be reviewed at the INSIWG label May 21, 2024
@Jeremy-M-Int
Copy link
Collaborator

Wouldn't that be already covered with the TOT and ResultDeterminationMode?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Pending INSIWG Review To be reviewed at the INSIWG
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants