RE: [election-services] EML v5

Title: RE: [election-services] EML v5

We 
need to be careful to differentiate between the terms Peter used and those 
currently in EML. 

 

EML 
uses Affiliation as the formal political party, and so it has the elements and 
attributes required for this. We therefore have a naming problem. We could 
rename Affiliation to Party and add a different Affiliation, but this change 
could be confusing since it changes the meaning of an existing term. I think we 
did something on endorsements before, but I cannot remember what this was. It 
may have just been to use the "xs:any" on 
Candidate. Thoughts?

 

EML 
currently uses VoterIdentification/Id as a unique identifier for the voter. 
In the UK we use the electoral roll number. In the USA, you might use the SSN, I 
don't know. The idea with this element is to add an xsi:type that forces 
validation to the correct simple data type for the jurisdiction in which it is 
being used. Where there is an identifier that is purely related to the right to 
vote in a particular election, we use the VToken. This can have several 
components such as a PIN and password.

 

If any 
of this is going to prove confusing in the US market, we should look at renaming 
the elements.

 

Regards

 

Paul

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Zelechoski, Peter 
  [mailto:]
Sent: 12 April 2007 
  16:26
To: 'David RR Webber (XML)'; 'Paul Spencer'
Cc: 
  'eml'
Subject: RE: [election-services] EML v5

  
Paul & David - 

  
David's clarification on Party/Affiliation is accurate; 
  Parties are registered legal entities in most jurisdictions, Affiliation is 
  used for endorsing entities (like Unions, AARP, VFW, etc.) that are not normal 
  "Political Parties".

  
Voter Identifier is the unique number associated with a voter 
  in the system; Voter ID is that Id document, like a driver's license, 
  government id, birth certificate, etc.

  
Yes, we do use Ranked Choice Voting in various locales, of 
  various methods. 

  
- Peter 

  
-----Original Message----- 
From: David 
  RR Webber (XML) [mailto:] 
  
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:24 AM 
  
To: Paul Spencer 
Cc: eml 
  
Subject: RE: [election-services] EML v5 

  
Paul, 

  
I'd like to "save" these changes and cleanup until we have 
  completed the formal OASIS member review period.  We are still awaiting 
  more input from NIST (hopefully!) on the IEEE precinct level reporting details 
  too - if we receive none - then I propose to add something that will cover 
  this need off based on my understanding - which is so that US implementers do 
  not need to use the separate IEEE schema just for the one instance of complex 
  precinct level reporting (this only effects a limited number of US 
  elections).

  
On to your questions - "In the core, what is the difference in 
  use between an Affiliation and the new Party? 
In the 
  core, what is the difference in use between the new VoterId and the Id that is 
  part of VoterIdentificationStructure?"

  
Both of these were added for US usage.  My understanding 
  of affiliation vis party in this US context is that one is a formal 
  relationship - the other is an alignment - the nuances of this are specific to 
  US practice.   Similarly VoterID was explicitly added for US 
  Pollbook implementations.  I suspect Id in VoterIdentificationStructure 
  could be an alternate here - but we'd have to compare the datatyping and 
  structure aspects to see if they are truely interchangable.

  
BTW - I've just found that the US have RCV counting as well as 
  STV - so that token needs to be added to the list of counting mechanism 
  types.

  
Thanks, DW 

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

  
> -------- Original Message -------- 
> Subject: [election-services] EML v5 
> 
  From: "Paul Spencer" <> 
> Date: Wed, April 11, 2007 8:30 am 
> To: 
  "eml" <> 
> 
> I did not have a chance to review EML 
  before it went to committee 
> vote, so 
  
> John asked to make comments during the public 
  consultation. 
> 
> I have 
  a few immediate comments, which I attach. Two relate to the 
> schemas, 
> and so are probably mainly 
  for David, the others to the documentation, 
> 
  which 
> I feel needs some further updating. I have 
  not done a detailed review, 
> partly because this 
  would take several days and partly because the 
> 
  general 
> comments serve to cover most 
  areas. 
> 
> I have also 
  been thinking about the future of EML, and will send a 
> separate 
> email. 
> 
> Regards 
> 
  
> Paul Spencer 
> 
  Director 
> Boynings Consulting Ltd 
> http://boynings.co.uk