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

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

Ithas certain extensibility built in yes.
I am not sure how far this goes as I have not gone through it totally.

However the sub schemas should also come from the TC so that they are
taken as part of the standard. By creating a schema / dtd in this way you
will then be able to keep hold of the standard, whilst allowing people to
make / suggest changes without the need to worry about the core schema /
dtd having to be changed for everyone.

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

<quote who="Paul Spencer">
> I realised after posting an earlier reply that I should have mentioned the
> extensibility of EML. I think it does what you are suggesting here.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon Bain [mailto:sibain@tendotzero.com]
>> Sent: 21 February 2005 09:14
>> To: Paul Spencer
>> Cc: eml
>> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
>> disabilities concern
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>