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

["Paul Spencer" <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>]

That's what we are using Schematron for.

Regards

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: 23 February 2005 15:34
> To: charbel.aoun@accenture.com; paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk;
> sibain@tendotzero.com
> Cc: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
> disabilities concern
> 
> 
> Charbel,
> 
> Everyone seems to have angst with this.  I'm just watching UBL-dev
> go thru the same thrash (again).
> 
> When it comes to the schemas themselves - you just need a
> formal approach and method to be able to manage this.
> 
> OAGi have been doing this with their BODs with success for
> years now by having a specific <user_extensions_area> in
> each of the schemas.  That is only part of the solution however.
> They still get into trouble on codelists and localization issues.
> 
> The bottom line is that schema is ill-equipped to support
> systematic variences and business contextual needs.  It
> just ain't in the design envelope.  Sure there are mechanisms
> that allow you to re-define stuff - but they hide and
> obfuscate what is going instead of making it open.
> 
> I've been advocating how the OASIS CAM template
> approach can augment your base schemas and capture all
> this local usage pattern detail.  That's what its designed to
> do - and using XSD and CAM together definately gets
> you out from under this rock.  So you publish your formal
> schema - and then sets of CAM templates for specific
> localization and contextual use patterns.
> 
> This is quite simply how the world works - and having
> the means to manage it is key.  Of course you also
> publish enhancements to the base schema too - as
> you migrate local discoveries over into the main base.
> 
> Anyway - that's my take on this - otherwise you get
> too tightly wound around the pole and it impacts
> your ability to bring in communities into your base
> and evolve to broader use of your specifications.
> That was the older EDI world - and we are trying
> to do better!
> 
> Cheers, DW
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <charbel.aoun@accenture.com>
> To: <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>; <sibain@tendotzero.com>
> Cc: <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:20 AM
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
> disabilities concern
> 
> 
> Are you coordinating this approach with the ODPM (in the UK context)?
> In 2003 when a consortium proposed "Enhanced EML" they were almost
> disqualified. At the time EML was still a theory and those who brought
> changes to EML where penalized. Now you indicate that variation would be
> acceptable if necessary and this I know for a fact (not only based on
> the past but current discussions) contradict what is in mind.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Charbel Aoun
> Accenture eDemocracy Services
> Director of Operations and Technology - International
> 105 Ladbroke Grove
> London, W11 1PG
> United Kingdom
> M +44 794 925 2143
> T  +44 207 616 8414
> Octel 43/ 40363
> email: charbel.aoun@accenture.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Spencer [mailto:paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk]
> Sent: 21 February 2005 19:21
> To: sibain@tendotzero.com
> Cc: eml
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
> disabilities concern
> 
> 
> I half agree. Part of the reason for the extensibility is to allow
> national variations. There are always some things that will change on a
> national basis. These should not need to go through the TC before use.
> If they are sufficiently common to become part of EML, then they should.
> Of course, people may want to consult the TC on whether something is a
> national variation or should be part of EML itself.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paul
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Bain [mailto:sibain@tendotzero.com]
> > Sent: 21 February 2005 16:28
> > To: Paul Spencer
> > Cc: eml
> > Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process -
> > one disabilities concern
> >
> >
> > 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/l
> eave
> >> _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/l
> eave_workgroup.php.
> 
> 
> 
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  If you have
> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
> original.  Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
> 
> 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.