[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [election-services] Draft of Electronic Records Requirements - US Election Assistance Commission TGDC
|
John, Now that the revised VVSG
document containing the Electronic Records requirements in Chapter 5 has been publicly
published, you and your TC are encouraged to review this chapter and provide
feedback to the TGDC. Regarding the open format
requirement, at this stage, I don’t expect NIST to provide more details
on the type of “open format”
I think that EML v5 is an “open format” that would enable election
systems that use EML v5 to be compliant with this provision of the VVSG. Right now, Chapter 5 of
the VVSG is the closest the USA has to a set of requirements for common data
formats in election systems. So,
please direct efforts to describe what portions of EML v5 enable compliance
with the specific requirements in Chapter 5 of the draft VVSG. If EML v5 would need to have
USA-specific extensions or profiles to meet the VVSG requirements, then please
make note of that. As NIST and the TGDC must
complete the VVSG by the end of July, and the next TGDC teleconference is being
planned for late June, it would be best to have a response completed by mid
June, if that is possible. Also, if
you feel that Chapter 5 is missing any critical additional requirements, please let me
know that. Let me know if you or
others on the OASIS E&VS TC have any questions. Patrick Gannon From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Patrick I've had a quick review of Chapter 5 and I don't believe
there's anything there that EML v5 cannot handle,
particularly utilising the flexibility and extensibility that we've built
into the XML schemas. Having said that the biggest aspect for us is not
defined, ie 1.2.1-A
Records
required to be in open format. The open format is not defined and that
would be the real essence of determining whether EML v5 meets the specific
needs of TGDC or whether it needs modifications. Again though with the
extensibility we've built in I would be very surprised if we could not meet
their requirements. It
would be very interesting to hear where this is going. If this is just to
be the USA requirement then we could do a detailed response to it showing how
EML can support it. However if this is leading to the recommendation of a
particular standard then why is EML not recognised anywhere as potential
candidate? I'm sure I don't have to tell you but we need to get things
in the right order. Requirements should lead to standards not the other
way round. So let TGDC set the requirement then we can build EML to
deliver to it. It would be folly for them to say EML is no good
because it doesn't do what we want. I've worked very hard in UK and the
Council of Europe to get clear requirements so we know what EML has to
support. We know need that dialogue and understanding from TGDC and NIST. Let me know when and how you need further input
from the TC.
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive
emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo!
Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]