RE: [election-services] EML 530 schema?

John,

My memory may not be the best on this - but I thought I recalled we had already agreed to add a 530 Statistics transaction to the overall set for v6, since we missed the window for doing that with V5.  Sven confirmed that the 530 xsd as is was suitable for what Belgium was doing with statistics reporting also.  The wishes list may be back in V5 on this, but certainly should carry over to V6.

 

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: RE: [election-services] EML 530 schema?

From: "John Borras" <>

Date: Fri, May 01, 2009 2:47 pm

To: "Joseph Lorenzo Hall" <>

Cc: "eml" <>

Joe

From the very outset of EML we have recognised that local jurisdictions

would need to localise the standard and indeed in our documentation we

have shown them how they can do that with Schematron.  So it is fully in

order for CA SoS to introduce local variations, in this case a 530, for

their own purposes.  When we in the TC come to scope our next release we

should and do review any local variations to assess whether there are

generic enough to include in the next version of the standard or whether

they are so local specific that they do not warrant inclusion.  So there

will always be situations were local use gets out of step or has

variants to the approved standard.  We cannot stop that nor should we

seek to do so. Observers and potential other users need to be careful of

what is being used in any situation and check how much is "non-standard"

and make their own decisions or seek our advice on whether they should

copy that implementation. 

So I do not see any issue about this unless the CA SoS claimed that

their implementation was totally EML compliant. If that was the case

then we should have either corrected that mis-information or made it

clear that we intended to adopt that change in our next release.  I

think the latter is the more likely in this instance.  We should also

recognise that David was acting on his own behalf when working for them

and not at that point as an agent for the TC.

I hope this allays your concerns but if you wish to discuss it further

then I'd be happy to add it to the agenda for our next TC call?

Regards

John

Skype:  gov3john

m.  +44 (0)7976 157745

-----Original Message-----

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall [mailto:] 

Sent: 01 May 2009 12:16

To: David RR Webber (XML)

Cc: eml

Subject: Re: [election-services] EML 530 schema?

A concern I have here is that we shouldn't provide draft EML schema to

organizations unless we've possed a canonical draft on the E&VS TC

repository.  For example, what if the XSD David releases on Monday is

substantively different than the one the CA SoS developed their system

against?  I still won't be able to validate the CA SoS' 530 releases

without getting their version of the 530 (or a diff).  That's not a

good thing.

I understand that we want to get things out and be as useful as

possible, but there are very good reasons EML is a *standard* and that

drafts are made available publicly via the OASIS web site repository

for our TC.  The 530 is not in the v6.0 alpha. (maybe it's somewhere

else?)

Can we formally or informally decide that in the future any

transmission of draft schema or documentation "intended for a future

release" will be mediated by the EML TC web site?  Or at least that

their is an opportunity for TC members (and possibly members of the

public) to get these documents?  If not, we risk not being an open

standard (we'd be a mostly open standard with closed and unclear draft

elements in production environments).

Anyway, sorry to be somewhat of a stickler here but this issue with

the 530 exposes some deficiencies in how we're operating as a

standards-setting TC.  I want to emphasize that David's doing a great

job and I don't think we'd be able to do as much (or much at all)

without him... however, we need to abide by certain formal

arrangements here.

best, Joe

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <>

wrote:

> Great!

>

> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM, David RR Webber (XML)

<> wrote:

>> This is already in the new V6 release.

>> I should have the next complete draft available for everyone over the

>> weekend - just doing some final polish on the documentation and

dictionary

>> side right now for our upcoming May meeting

-- 

Joseph Lorenzo Hall

ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate

UC Berkeley School of Information

Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy

http://josephhall.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php