RE: [election-services] The Future of EML

Paul,

 

It's hard to predict.  We may put all the effort there - and they
ask for something else entirely!

 

I agree with the need - it has become excessively difficult to discern
this stuff just looking at the schemas and the structure diagrams themselves.

 

However - I don't see value in beating ourselves up right now - when as
we move forward - we can have more time to distill this out - as we know the ISO process is not rapid!

 

The important thing is that you have alerted everyone to the needs - now
we must address it with whatever resources we can draw from.  Perhaps the EU and NIST jointly can step in to develop a data model, or share what they have already?

 

Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [election-services] The Future of EML
From: "Paul Spencer" <>
Date: Thu, April 12, 2007 6:50 am
To: "John Borras" <>, "eml"
<>

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.