RE: [election-services] NIST workshop on common data format forElectronic Voting Systems

Thanks to Joe and David for bringing this to our attention.  I propose to submit the updated version of our EML White paper, copy attached.  Please let me have any suggested amendments to this in
 the next few days please.

 

This looks to be a very important workshop and we would do well to have as many supporters at this event as possible, so can you make every endeavour to attend please.  Also can I have a volunteer to make a presentation on
 our behalf if our submission is selected.

 

Regards

John

 

From: David RR Webber (XML) []

Sent: 28 July 2009 21:02

To: eml 

Subject: [election-services] NIST workshop on common data format for Electronic Voting Systems

Posting this here for the NIST members on our list.

Obviously we should submit something on the new EML V6.0 and I am available to present as needed.

21 August 2009 is the submission deadline.

Thanks, DW

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

 NIST is having a workshop in October on common data format for electronic

Voting Systems. Here's the announcement with some added highlights:

http://vote.nist.gov/CDF-WorkshopCallForPapers.htm

CALL FOR PARTICIPATION

NIST Workshop on a Common Data Format for Electronic Voting Systems

29-30 OCTOBER 2009, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY,

GAITHERSBURG, MD

The goal of this two-day workshop is to identify and agree upon a set of

requirements for a common data format for voting systems. While there have been

many calls for a common data format for voting systems, there is little

consensus on the requirements for this format or what it is to accomplish.

Possible goals for a common data format include interoperability of different

equipment, auditability, transparency, publishing (communication with consumers

of election data, such as media outlets), integration between polls and

registration, transition to electronic record-keeping, or the ability just to

"get the data out" by any means possible. Stakeholders include manufacturers,

election officials, the EAC, consumers of election data, voters, organizations

with existing data formats (including OASIS and the Voting Information

Project), academics, and others with related work.

Different goals have different consequences for the requirements, the scope of

work, and the testing that must follow. For example:

* Requirements

+ Human-readable versus machine readable-human-readability matters for

transparency and auditing, whereas integration of equipment indicates

use of an existing data exchange syntax that is optimized for

machine-reading rather than human-reading.

+ Flexible and extensible versus uniform and complete-interoperability is

helped by a standard data format only if the format is used in the same

way by everyone; other goals may accommodate a more flexible and

extensible format.

+ Secure versus convenient-securing the records to make them valid for

auditing could also hamper intermediate processing that might be needed

to integrate disparate pieces of equipment.

+ Format versus content-to "get the data out" it is more important to

specify the data to be provided, the points in the process at which it

is to be provided, and the mechanism for export than the format of the

data.

* Scope

+ Publishing results involves only the reporting phase of the election

and should not include such information as individual ballot images.

+ Interoperability might only be needed at certain points in the system

architecture.

+ Registration may or may not be within scope.

+ Low-level event log data may only be useful for auditing.

* Testing

+ If the data format is to be used for auditing, usability testing with

auditors is indicated.

+ If the goal is interoperability, interoperability testing is different

from conformity assessment

This workshop aims to (a) begin a discussion on the above issues among experts

in the elections community who would work with a common data format, including

election officials, auditors, manufacturers, testing labs, and others involved

in election analysis, and (b) arrive at basic scoping for what a common data

format is to accomplish and the basic requirements for what it must do.

Discussions during the workshop will address the following:

* The current state and uses of common data formats;

* "The customer"-existing and potential;

* The customer's goals-what data needs to be encoded in the format and how

will it be used;

* Next steps towards a common data format;

* Willing contributors.

Workshop attendees are encouraged to submit papers in advance of the workshop.

Two types of submissions are sought:

1. Position papers on requirements for common data formats (2-5 pages). Topics

of interest include (but are not limited to) the following:

+ What problems or needs should be addressed by a common data format for

any particular application, e.g., auditing, transparency of election

results, device interoperability, or testing;

+ What data should be represented by a common data format;

+ When in the voting process should the data be available.

2. Papers describing current uses of data formats in U.S. elections and

experiences with using the formats (2-10 pages), including (but not limited

to) the following:

+ What problems were being addressed by use of the format;

+ Whether customization was necessary;

+ Success of the effort;

+ Lessons learned.

Authors may submit papers that have been presented or published elsewhere.

Accepted papers and presentation slides will be made available on the web as

well as in printed form to workshop attendees. Manuscripts will not be formally

published.

Manuscripts should be sent to  by 21 August 2009. Decisions will

be made by 09 September 2009.

----- End forwarded message -----

_______________________________________________

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

The Case for EML v3.doc