RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one disabilities concern

["Simon Bain" <sibain@tendotzero.com>]

Hi.

I am one of those which does implement EML. I am also of the view and was
very much of this oppinion during the development of the code in the 2003
local elections that standards should not change continually, as this
gives people reasons to not use it and/or continual software updates which
customers then get annoyed with.

However all standards should be extensible. This does 2 things
1) Allows users to input their own tags. (Can be dangerous and not allow
for open cross border use)
2) Allows the standards body to define sub schemas which then can be taken
into the main schema if required by the using authority.

What a standard should not become is static, which I know you are not
suggesting. A standard should also not be closed to new thoughts and
suggestions, even after it has been approved and announced. Again
something I know that you are not suggesting.


So in my oppinion there should be a stable almost non changing standard
with enough extensibility placed in it to allow other smaller more
specific schemas to be defined by the standards body and then adopted by
users. These would plug n to the main schema, making it extensible and
controllable.

This would then allow for the additions of items after due consideration
and thought to be added in a sub schema. For ideas put over not only by
David but also by others as they start to use the schema. The standard
still remains under the control of the standards body but allows for a
much easier adoption and sharing ability, and also allow it to grow and
prosper. After all in 98 at the SGML conference in Paris this is what most
users and vendors were screaming for in the new XML syntax. Not to have a
fixed DTD one which was not extensible and one that could not move with
the rest of the World.

Cheers from a very cold Bedford
Simon
-- 
Simon Bain
TENdotZERO
----------
Tel:    0845 056 3377
        44 1234 359090
Mobile: 44 (0)7793 769 846

<quote who="Paul Spencer">
> Simon,
>
> The basic point is that people are currently implementing EML, and won't
> do
> so if the specification is changing continually. So it is more that we
> should consider changes as part of an improvement cycle over some
> specified
> time period. If David is looking at defining and agreeing an electoral
> process, that will take some time (perhaps 6-12 months within OASIS, but
> considerably longer to get any nation to agree to adopt it) and EML could
> then be adjusted to fit.
>
> At least, that is my understanding and opinion. Perhaps John Borras has a
> different view.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon Bain [mailto:sibain@tendotzero.com]
>> Sent: 20 February 2005 07:57
>> To: Paul Spencer
>> Cc: "David Webber " <david@drrw.info>,
>> election-services@lists.oasis-open.org"@tendotzero.com
>> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
>> disabilities concern
>>
>>
>> Paul hi.
>>
>> What do you mean by "stability".
>> Do you mean that you do not want any updates to the EML spec or do you
>> mean that you mean that any future updates should be pllaced on hold for
>> a
>> given period of time?
>>
>> All the best
>> Simon
>> --
>> Simon Bain
>> TENdotZERO
>> ----------
>> Tel:    0845 056 3377
>>         44 1234 359090
>> Mobile: 44 (0)7793 769 846
>>
>> <quote who="Paul Spencer">
>> > v4 has been released. We are looking for some stability at the
>> moment, but
>> > that does not mean that we don't want to continue to move forwards.
>> John
>> > Borras chairs the TC, and this would be a subject for the meeting he
>> is
>> > suggesting.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: David Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
>> >> Sent: 19 February 2005 16:31
>> >> To: Paul Spencer; election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting
>> process - one
>> >> disabilities concern
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Paul,
>> >>
>> >> Just reviewed the EML docs and schemas and sent some public comments
>> >> to the OASIS comments list.  Some of this can be addressed now - but
>> >> other matters are going to need more work.  Are we on a timetable to
>> >> release EML 4.0 here - or do we have another release cycle here
>> >> to use up?  Otherwise a 4.5 release to catch these other matters
>> >> clearly is another option.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, DW
>> >>
>> >> > David,
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you read the EML documents? This is a start on a viable
>> process.
>> >> At
>> >> the
>> >> > time, we felt we needed a reference process to help us define
>> >> the schemas.
>> >> > We also felt that this process would vary a lot
>> >> internationally. However,
>> >> > there are certain key points (mainly to do with trust) that can be
>> >> > standardised on an international basis.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would love to see the OASIS E&VSTC get involved in this, but
>> >> I wonder if
>> >> > OASIS is the right place for this. On the other hand, it could
>> >> be the only
>> >> > place that would take a truly international (rather than
>> >> US-centric) view.
>> >> > Also, from a personal view, having spent a considerable time
>> helping
>> >> get
>> >> EML
>> >> > to the stage it is, I would like any new initiative to use it.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
>> >> roster of the OASIS TC), go to
>> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/election-services/mem
>> > bers/leave_workgroup.php.
>> >
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
>> of
>> > the OASIS TC), go to
>> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/election-services/members/leave
> _workgroup.php.
>>
>