John,
I
think we are basically in agreement that this work should be done sometime. My
concern is that it becomes harder to make structural changes after the ISO
process. My experience of ISO standards has also been that they generally start
in a syntax-independent style, then add the XML on top. This would require the
data model.
Whilst
we don't want to delay the ISO process, I wonder if it will take longer if our
work is not in that form.
Regards
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: John Borras
[mailto:]
Sent: 12 April 2007
09:59
To: Paul Spencer; eml
Subject: Re:
[election-services] The Future of EML
Paul
It was probably inevitable that we have arrived at a version of EML
that is not optimal as the requirement continues to evolve and experience
gained as we come to use the schemas. Clearly if we knew back
in 2001 what we know now we would have ended up with a better specification.
However let's not lose sight of the fact that what we have is far
superior to anything else around. I don't get the sense that any of it
is wrong, just that it could be better. I don't share your concerns
about going into ISO with this version. I don't think we should
fear other
experts who might criticise it, we have most
of the global e-voting expertise within the TC and the Council of Europe
working group, and that body of opinion gives us a considerable
advantage.
We have adopted the process of modifying the schemas periodically in
the light of experience and if what you say about 120 and others being
superfluous we should add that to the next update cycle, when we can also feed
in any further changes resulting from the next UK and Belgium pilots. We
can correct any documentation problems in the current Public Review round so
perhaps you and David can post comments to that effect so there is a formal
record which we can address at the end of the review cycle.
We have discussed your suggestion before about producing a data model and
clearly we are not going to get anybody to fund that work. However I am
prepared to put some personal time into this so perhaps we could meet up
at your convenience to scope out what needs to be done etc. If the TC
are content with our plans we can include that work into the next version
of EML.
Regards
John
M. +44 (0)7976 157745
-----
Original Message ----
From: Paul Spencer
<>
To: eml
<>
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April,
2007 1:30:41 PM
Subject: [election-services] The Future of EML
In my recent work involving EML, it has been clear that the clarity
and
consistency of the specification are suffering badly from the effects
of its
continued evolution. Some years ago, I suggested building a proper
data
model, but this was turned down on cost grounds.
Typical of the
issues I am now finding is that the 330, which was originally
intended to
supply a list of electors for the purpose of voting, has
evolved
to cover most areas where such a list is required. For example, in
the UK,
it is being used to provide a list of electors to credit
reference
agencies. This means it is duplicating the 120 message, and I am
being asked
which should be used. If there is this confusion, it will lead
to
inconsistent implementations. Now I am being asked for similar features
in
the 230. It seems logical to remove the 120 and expand the 230, 330 and
630
to cover its functions.
This is just one example. I believe that
a thorough review of the schemas,
including the development of a data
model, would help clarify many points
and help with consistency of
implementation. Since the ISO process is not
one to be taken lightly, I
would like to see it done before submission. I
currently worry about the
feedback we will get if other experts look at the
current version in
detail.
Why can't we just get on and do this work? Because, in spite of
the presence
on the TC of several large companies working in the
multi-billion dollar
voting industry, most of the technical work is being
left to two individuals
who receive no payment. Is it not time for some of
the big companies either
to allow some staff to work on this or put up some
money so that the current
volunteers can do a decent job?
We should
be able to get EML up to the standards of UBL and other
specifications that
have had significant resource thrown at them. If not, it
reflects badly on
the industry and will end up costing people more as
interoperability
becomes harder to manage.
Regards
Paul
Spencer
Director
Boynings Consulting Ltd
http://boynings.co.uk
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign
up for your free account today.
