RE: [election-services] NIST workshop on common data format for ElectronicVoting Systems

John,

Not sure about this.  They clearly are throwing down the gauntlet for SPECIFIC use cases - reading between the lines - their conjecture is - noone is using this stuff - so that proves its bad - and new is needed instead.

The most obvious for EML here in the US are two - CA SoS EML statistics and the VIP project geodistrict and polling places.

Then I would suggest a third presentation on overall EML, V6 and specifically focusing on US needs and how V6 is covering these.  Reporting, auditing and statistics are now all strong suits for new EML V6 - whereas previously NIST had doubted the ability to handle precinct style recording.  Also - we can show specific ballots from NY, Connecticut, Florida, CA and more - all being handled using EML 440 - again vital to show actual instances.

I typically like to submit up to 4 or 5 presentations - because it is hard to second guess what the organizers exact focus is - and you can expect them to reject a couple then - and take a couple.

Thanks, DW

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

Subject: RE: [election-services] NIST workshop on common data format

for Electronic Voting Systems

From: John Borras <>

Date: Wed, July 29, 2009 4:24 am

To: "eml " <>

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

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