RE: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6
From: "John Borras" <john@pensive.eu>
Date: Mon, March 30, 2009 12:22 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: "eml " <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>

David

Just one (last) thought on all this. We need to be aware of some criticisms in the past that some of the schemas are too large to process, so merging 330, 120 and 230 might just add to that criticism unless we can rationalise along the way.

Apart from the size issue I’m not sure it’s good design to have a multi-purpose schema as 330 will turn out to be – what’s your view on that aspect?

John

From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 30 March 2009 17:08
To: Paul Spencer
Cc: 'eml '; John Borras; 'Zelechoski,Peter'
Subject: RE: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6

Paul,

OK this is a huge help - now I understand the use cases better.

I'll look at where that stuff on the dSig came from - that may just be in the old CIQ schema imports.

Also - I can run the 230 dictionary off - and merge with 330 - and then do compare again - see what that shows. Since thats all automated its quick to do.

No rush here in getting to an immediate solution. We can continue to analyze this and review documentation over next few weeks - and that should save time once you can spend time to desk check the specific details.

I have other stuff I need to work on for v6 in the meantime!

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6
From: "Paul Spencer" <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>
Date: Mon, March 30, 2009 11:42 am
To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info>, "'Zelechoski,Peter'"
<pzelechoski@essvote.com>
Cc: "'eml '" <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>, "'John Borras'"
<john@pensive.eu>

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

The trigger for looking at this was that the CORE project in the UK was using the 330 basically to transfer information between databases. There are several exports from electoral registration systems that are basically lists of electors for different purposes, filtered in different ways. Logically, you could argue that the 330 if right is the data is being printed, but the 120 if it is going into another database. Since you don’t know the use of the data when sending it, there must be a big overlap. And what about data being transferred from an electoral register to an election management system? The initial thought was that this was a 330 again. The 120 was a late addition intended for transferring electors between one electoral register and another. The overlap just seems too great.

Looking at the EML v5 120, it is not just the 330 that would change to replace it, the 230 would as well.

Looking at the v5 schemas, I also don’t see any digital signature stuff. Where is that from? Similarly with the xNAL stuff – the Voter name and address are in both schemas, so both should have the xNAL elements included.

I am afraid I am still working a 7 day week out here in Abu Dhabi, so I am having difficulty looking at this in detail. But I think the schema diagrams are a more useful source for comparison than the spreadsheets in their current form.

If it’s all too difficult, we can always leave it for another time. I had always seen this going with the development of a better data model.

Regards

Paul

From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 30 March 2009 01:58
To: Zelechoski,Peter
Cc: eml ; John Borras; paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk
Subject: RE: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6

Peter,

Notice there is nothing to stop existing users of 120 continuing to do so. However if we find that there are better ways of doing this all in 330, and that certain aspects of the 120 have become redundant - then it behoves to state that and not perpetuate less than optimal practices going forward with v6. After the whole point of v6 is to makes things smarter, better, easier...

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6
From: "Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com>
Date: Sun, March 29, 2009 1:17 pm
To: "John Borras" <john@pensive.eu>, "David RR Webber (XML)"
<david@drrw.info>, <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>
Cc: "eml " <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>

John, although I agree with David's desire for a sanity check, I can support your supposition from my experience. I don't have any practical use, only samples that I have played with. So, I can't give you an indication of how true users will react if we change it.

From: John Borras [mailto:john@pensive.eu]
Sent: 2009-03-29 10:49 AM
To: David RR Webber (XML); paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk
Cc: eml
Subject: RE: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6

OK I understand and agree your logic, but I doubt apart from Paul who raised the issue of removing the 120 that we have much if any experience of using it.

Paul – Is there anything in the 120 that we can remove in this transition?

John

From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 29 March 2009 16:37
To: John Borras
Cc: eml
Subject: RE: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6

John,

Was hoping for input from the team first. People who are using 120 and 330 and how they see this needs to be aligned. Things change so we need a sanity check - on whether these should be continued - I don't just want to blindly put things in without understanding the role and purpose they then fulfil in the 330. If we can simplify and rationalize then we should take this opportunity to do that.

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6
From: "John Borras" <john@pensive.eu>
Date: Sun, March 29, 2009 10:28 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: "eml " <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>

David

The simple answer surely has to be, if there’s stuff in 120 that’s not in 330 then it needs to be added to the later before we can delete the 120. We cannot afford to lose any data in this exercise as we established way back that the 120 was a necessary process that had to be part of EML. So unless I’m misunderstanding your question all the orange stuff has to be added.

I assume all the orange stuff about addresses is the result of your CIQ import, and that needs to be in 330.

I don’t see what your query is about the signature stuff – can you be more explicit about which items are confusing you.

If you think we need a quick telecon to go through this, and maybe other bits of V6, then let’s set that up.

Thanks for your efforts so far.

John

From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 27 March 2009 19:18
To: eml
Subject: [election-services] Deprecating EML 120 for EML 330 in V6

Team,

Attached is a spreadsheet I autogenerated using CAM - comparing the components of the 120 to the 330.

I have labelled those items in 120 that appear to not be in the 330 in orange.

Can we sanity check these please? Seems like the signature stuff may be something we need to resolve?

Is there anything else? If you want to provide feedback - probably easiest is to edit the spreadsheet - and mark those items we need to add to the 330 accordingly (green).

I've also included the EML 330 dictionary of the core components CCTS - so you can further analysis what may already be in the 330 that can be applied for the 120.

Once we have this all resolved - then I plan to remove the 120 from the V6.

Thanks, DW

election-services message