RE: [election-services] OASIS EVS TC: Voting Process TC Spec v1.d oc:510 - Count/Result

[Borras John - Office of the e-Envoy e-Government -<johnborras@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk>]

Tim
Thanks for raising the query about Reporting Units.  You'll see from the
debate below the "authors" agree that v1 does not adequately cover the
requirement but suggest we deal with it in v2.  

As I said at last week's committee meeting we are anxious to get v1 under
our belt so I would prefer to add it as another Outstanding Issue under
Section 1.7 of version 1 and then deal with it in version 2.  In that way we
can continue with the vote on v1 and also come up with an answer in v2,
which should follow on very quickly after v1.  

If you are agreeable with this course of action can I ask you to complete
your vote on v1 please. 

Regards

John


-----Original Message-----
From: John Ross [mailto:ross@secstan.com]
Sent: 03 May 2002 08:10
To: Paul Spencer; Borras John - Office of the e-Envoy e-Government -;
caoun@election.com
Cc: Choudhury Anwar - Office of the e-Envoy e-Government -
Subject: RE: [election-services] OASIS EVS TC: Voting Process TC Spec
v1.doc: 510 - Count/Result


I agree with Paul,

We should recognise the issue raised by Tim is not adequately version 1 of
EML. We should reply that we believe it is OK if you use version 2 of the
schema 510  (see page 40 of  process document)and ask Tim if he agrees.

All it means is that EML version 2 is needed for US elections.

By the way I believe that  EML version 2 is also required for UK public
elections (i.e. we will want EML version 2)

So who will reply to Tim and the list.

Regards

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Spencer [mailto:paul.spencer@alphaxml.com]
Sent: 01 May 2002 10:41
To: Borras John - Office of the e-Envoy e-Government -;
caoun@election.com; John Ross
Cc: Choudhury Anwar - Office of the e-Envoy e-Government -
Subject: RE: [election-services] OASIS EVS TC: Voting Process TC Spec
v1.doc: 510 - Count/Result


John,

The effect of this is to restrict the types of election for which the
schema is suitable. There are already restrictions, so this just adds
more. Is this a problem for the first release?

There is actually another error in this version of the schema as shown
in the process document, but not in the schema itself, which is that
spoiled papers, abstentions etc are shown as per candidate. This was
corrected in the next version. The schema set that went out also
includes some superfluous files. I attach a new copy with these
deleted.

The choice is therefore to go ahead with this additional restriction
if there are reasons for publishing quickly or go straight to the
latest version with additions to take account of Tim's comment. I see
little point in just altering 510 to correct this without the other
changes for audit etc as well.

I think the requirements are best met by publishing v1 as is, then
moving to v2 as quickly as possible.

Incidentally, after today I am away until next Wednesday.

Regards

Paul



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borras John - Office of the e-Envoy e-Government -
> [mailto:johnborras@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk]
> Sent: 01 May 2002 07:50
> To: 'paul.Spencer@alphaxml.com'; 'caoun@election.com';
> 'ross@secstan.co'
> Cc: Choudhury Anwar - Office of the e-Envoy e-Government -
> Subject: FW: [election-services] OASIS EVS TC: Voting
> Process TC Spec
> v1.doc: 510 - Count/Result
> Importance: High
>
>
> Guys
> Any views on this please?
> I hope we don't have to re-run the Vote because of this?
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bovee [mailto:tbovee@ap.org]
> Sent: 30 April 2002 21:45
> To: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: electionxml@ap.org
> Subject: [election-services] OASIS EVS TC: Voting Process TC Spec
> v1.doc: 510 - Count/Result
>
>
> All,
>
> A member of the AP election development team points out that schema
> 510-Count/Result in the Data Requirements section of Voting
> Process TC
> Spec v11.doc does not seem to provide for returns from what
> we term a
> "reporting unit"--that is, returns from a subunit within a
> contest. An
> individual county within a gubernatorial race would be one example.
>
> "Reporting unit" returns are standard for election
> authority reports to
> media in the United States.
>
> So, the question would be: Does the existing structure in
> fact allow for
> "reporting unit" results? If not, can it be added in?
>
> Following is the 510 section, from page 36 of my copy of
> the document:
>
> 510 - Count/Result
>
> 	Election event id
> 	Election event name
> 	Election id
> 	Election name
> 	Election rule id
> 	Contests
>
>        	Contest ID
> 		Contest Name
>        	Max vote
>        	Options
>
>        		Option id
>        		Option name
>        		Affiliation
>        	Valid Votes
>        	Rejected votes (mandatory reasons, optional reasons)
> 			Abstentions (blank)
>
>
>        Seal
>        Language ID
>        Any
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
> --
> Tim Bovee, Director of Projects/Technology
> The Associated Press, Washington
> 202-776-9465, tbovee@ap.org
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> ____________
> The original of this email has been scanned for viruses by
> the Government
> Secure Intranet (GSI) virus scanning service supplied
> exclusively by Cable &
> Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> GSI users - for further details, please contact the GSI
> Nerve Centre, or
> browse GNC 003/2002 at http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/new2002notices.htm
>
> In case of problems, please call your organisations IT helpdesk.
>
> 		******************************
> The Cabinet Office's computer systems may be monitored and
> communications
> carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation
> of the system
> and for other lawful purposes.
>
>
>
>
>


________________________________________________________________________
The original of this email has been scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet (GSI) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable &
Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.

GSI users - for further details, please contact the GSI Nerve Centre, or
browse GNC 003/2002 at http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/new2002notices.htm

In case of problems, please call your organisations IT helpdesk.

		****************************** 
The Cabinet Office's computer systems may be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for other lawful purposes.