acknowledgements for ansi/nist-itl 1-2011 - NIST Visual Image ...
acknowledgements for ansi/nist-itl 1-2011 - NIST Visual Image ... acknowledgements for ansi/nist-itl 1-2011 - NIST Visual Image ...
ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013 DRAFT VERSIONmodification of features.Table 47 EFS codes for methods of feature detectionCodeAUTOREVEDITMANUsageThe features were detected and encoded by an automated process without anypossibility of human editing. The algorithm shall be noted in the appropriateinformation item.The features were detected and encoded by an automated process, and manuallyreviewed without the need for manual editing. The algorithm and examiner’s nameshall be noted in the appropriate information items.The features were detected and encoded by an automated process, but manuallyedited. The algorithm and examiner’s name shall be noted in the appropriateinformation items.The features were manually detected and encoded. The examiner’s name shall benoted in the appropriate information item.8.9.7.40 Field 9.351: EFS comments / COMThis optional text field contains additional information not noted in other fields. This mayinclude unformatted text information such as location, background information, ordescriptive information. If comments need to be made about specific portions of theimpression, use Field 9.324: EFS distinctive features / DIS or Field 9.332: EFSminutiae ridge count algorithm / MRA.8.9.7.41 Field 9.352: EFS latent processing method / LPMThis optional text field contains one or more three-letter codes 94 from Table 48 indicatingthe technique(s) used to process the latent fingerprint. This field is only used for latentimages. Unprocessed impressions (patent images visible to the naked eye) shall belabeled VIS. Multiple methods should be marked by separate subfields. Methods shouldonly be marked if they contributed substantively to the visualization of the image, andshall not be a list of all methods attempted.8.9.7.42 Field 9.353: EFS examiner analysis assessment / EAAThis optional text field indicates an examiner’s assessment of the value of the singleimpression delineated by Field 9.300: EFS region of interest / ROI. See also Field9.362: EFS examiner comparison determination / ECD for comparisondeterminations. This field consists of seven information items, of which the first five aremandatory:• The first information item (value assessment code / AAV) indicates thevalue of the impression, from Table 49.94[2013e>] Text corrected to correspond to Table 30 Type-9 Fields for EFS occurrence maximum forthis field [
ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013 DRAFT VERSION• The second information item (examiner last name / ALN) shall containthe surname (last name) of the fingerprint examiner.• The third information item (examiner first name / AFN) shall contain thefirst name (given name, or first and middle names) of the fingerprintexaminer.• The fourth information item (examiner affiliation / AAF) shall containthe employer or organizational affiliation of the examiner.• The fifth information item (date and time / AMT) shall contain the dateand time that the determination was made, using Greenwich Mean Time(GMT). See Section 7.7.2.2.• The sixth information item is optional (comment / ACM), and containsadditional clarifying information for the examiner analysis assessment.• The seventh information item is optional (analysis complexity flag /CXF). It is only used when the examiner determines that the analysis wascomplex as defined in Standards for examining fraction ridge impressionsand resulting conclusions. (See Normative references) In that case, anentry of “COMPLEX” is made. This decision is based on the availablequality of features, low specificity of features, significant distortion, ordisagreement among examiners. This information item is included for usein quality assurance / quality control processes.8.9.7.43 Field 9.354: EFS evidence of fraud / EOFThis text field indicates that there is basis for determination that the image may befraudulent. This field consists of two information items:• The first information item (type of fraud / FRA) indicates the potentialtype of fraud attempted as determined from the impression, using thevalues in the “Code” column from Table 50.• The second information item (comment / CFD) is optional. It containstext that provides clarifying information regarding the assessment ofpotential evidence of fraud.8.9.7.44 Field 9.355: EFS latent substrate / LSBThis field is used to define the substrate, or surface on which the friction ridge impressionwas deposited. If multiple substrates are present, they are represented by separatesubfields consisting of the following information items:• The first information item (code / CLS) indicates the type of substrate,from the Code column of Table 51.174
- Page 164 and 165: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 166 and 167: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 168 and 169: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 170 and 171: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 172 and 173: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 174 and 175: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 176 and 177: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 178 and 179: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 180 and 181: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 182 and 183: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 184 and 185: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 186 and 187: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 188 and 189: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 190 and 191: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 192 and 193: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 194 and 195: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 196 and 197: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 198 and 199: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 200 and 201: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 202 and 203: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 204 and 205: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 206 and 207: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 208 and 209: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 210 and 211: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 212 and 213: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 216 and 217: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 218 and 219: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 220 and 221: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 222 and 223: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 224 and 225: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 226 and 227: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 228 and 229: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 230 and 231: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 232 and 233: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 234 and 235: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 236 and 237: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 238 and 239: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 240 and 241: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 242 and 243: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 244 and 245: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 246 and 247: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 248 and 249: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 250 and 251: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 252 and 253: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 254 and 255: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 256 and 257: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 258 and 259: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 260 and 261: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
- Page 262 and 263: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 - UPDATE 2013
ANSI/<strong>NIST</strong>-ITL 1-<strong>2011</strong> - UPDATE 2013 DRAFT VERSIONmodification of features.Table 47 EFS codes <strong>for</strong> methods of feature detectionCodeAUTOREVEDITMANUsageThe features were detected and encoded by an automated process without anypossibility of human editing. The algorithm shall be noted in the appropriatein<strong>for</strong>mation item.The features were detected and encoded by an automated process, and manuallyreviewed without the need <strong>for</strong> manual editing. The algorithm and examiner’s nameshall be noted in the appropriate in<strong>for</strong>mation items.The features were detected and encoded by an automated process, but manuallyedited. The algorithm and examiner’s name shall be noted in the appropriatein<strong>for</strong>mation items.The features were manually detected and encoded. The examiner’s name shall benoted in the appropriate in<strong>for</strong>mation item.8.9.7.40 Field 9.351: EFS comments / COMThis optional text field contains additional in<strong>for</strong>mation not noted in other fields. This mayinclude un<strong>for</strong>matted text in<strong>for</strong>mation such as location, background in<strong>for</strong>mation, ordescriptive in<strong>for</strong>mation. If comments need to be made about specific portions of theimpression, use Field 9.324: EFS distinctive features / DIS or Field 9.332: EFSminutiae ridge count algorithm / MRA.8.9.7.41 Field 9.352: EFS latent processing method / LPMThis optional text field contains one or more three-letter codes 94 from Table 48 indicatingthe technique(s) used to process the latent fingerprint. This field is only used <strong>for</strong> latentimages. Unprocessed impressions (patent images visible to the naked eye) shall belabeled VIS. Multiple methods should be marked by separate subfields. Methods shouldonly be marked if they contributed substantively to the visualization of the image, andshall not be a list of all methods attempted.8.9.7.42 Field 9.353: EFS examiner analysis assessment / EAAThis optional text field indicates an examiner’s assessment of the value of the singleimpression delineated by Field 9.300: EFS region of interest / ROI. See also Field9.362: EFS examiner comparison determination / ECD <strong>for</strong> comparisondeterminations. This field consists of seven in<strong>for</strong>mation items, of which the first five aremandatory:• The first in<strong>for</strong>mation item (value assessment code / AAV) indicates thevalue of the impression, from Table 49.94[2013e>] Text corrected to correspond to Table 30 Type-9 Fields <strong>for</strong> EFS occurrence maximum <strong>for</strong>this field [