election-services message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [election-services] Fw: Report on the suitability of EML for the Norwegian electoral system.
- From: "David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>
- To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:33:06 -0700
John,
This is excellent work indeed.
Some comments -
1) I've seen a few times that people think that VToken is unique ID -
rather than realizing it can also represent a
token that enables access to voting -
and hence would be re-used by several voters in a polling station type
environment (e.g. randomly assigned scanned
plastic access wand or smartcard key) - or even in a distributed
remote access election - may not necessarily
uniquely ID - but simply verify their right to vote.
2) The counting process - the provisional count can use the same
method we've used in our OpenScan EML
code - to ensure anonymous counting of initial
ballots. Important from audit and ensuring trusted count.
The second step - the final count - with voter
changes - is very interesting. We'd have to look at that
in more detail to see how that could be done in a
way to provide audit and trust.
3) They are concerned about backward compatibility - I think we need
to make clear that we have logical
backward compatibility - e.g. even if you have to
make changes to your schema / XML - the content
itself should remain logically supported and
enhanced. Unless of course we find that some technique
exposes risk of compromising either the vote
or legal aspects - then you would expect them to make
changes to fix that. Going forward though -
I think it's important for people to see that EML is stable
and that changes will be incremental. Right
now people thinking they have to change everything
when we come out with a new version - just is not
what I'm seeing as the case! (Section 3.1.2)
I guess this is also because their
architecture is based on Java objects that then persist the XML,
whereas the approach in OpenScan is the
reverse - the Java is driven by the XML - hence
dynamically the Java is adjusted by changes in the
XML. Their use of XMLBeans re-inforces this
notion of static hard binding too. XMLBeans
is also a convenient quick way for Java programmers
to handle XML - but in reality simple
tokenizing code is sufficient - since XMLBeans is designed
for complex XML that can be factored out of your
actual EML implementation.
This is also a question of trust and
verification. Even though the source is open - its easier to
understand what is going on if the linkages
and connections are exposed thru the XML and
the content in the XML - rather than thru hand cut
Java code.
Page 76 shows we still need to refine the message.
I'm not sure we really are wanting to have people
change the standard for all national
sub-sets. I think it is OK for them to add unique items
occassionally. Obviously the message
about publishing national subsets is not getting thru!
Simple change like adding Proposers Date of
Birth however - seems like something 5.x could handle.
4) Page 77 - Again - because of the nature of the
proportional counting - noting increase share of the poll?
Would this be handled by storing two
copies? One from initial count - and then revised count?
But in any case - they ARE treating
this as a local extension - cool!
5) I would be tempted to rely on Bronnesund Registry to ensure voter
entitlement information.
The EML would be stored in the Registry - and
then entitlement determined that way - either
through mailing out printed lists prior to
election - or live connection. Prevents people voting
in more than one place.
6) Page 79 - this looks like something we should address in V5.x -
ability to extend the information
on the ballot - I could see all kinds of local
varients here - better to provide a means for
people to extend a TYPE here to be what they
need...
7) Item 4.3.3 - what we do in OpenScan is pass in the tokenized
anonymous list. So the counting
process has no knowledge of candidates - just
IDRefs (this is like putting beans in numbered tins -
where you don't know what the tins actually are
for). I'd recommend the same approach for Norway.
8) Item 4.5.1 - they need to break down the "one large doc" approach
- XMLBeans again is causing
this to occur - whereas they could use lookups to
minimize actual content in the XML. Again
re-count and audit strategies should be
independent. This avoids creating a bottleneck. In
fact for a trusted audit - you NEED
completely separate pathways!
Overall the conclusion appears to be sound -
except for the fact that they need actual changes in our standard to
proceed! Somehow we need to cross that bridge - so that adopters
realize clearly what the process is here -and how they develop local
implementations - with feedback to the next standard release.
Thanks, DW
-------- Original Message
--------
Subject: [election-services] Fw: Report on the suitability
of EML for
the Norwegian electoral system.
From: John
Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, November 08, 2006
6:22 am
To: EML TC
<election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
Colleagues
Please see the e-mail below. This report is a very thorough
evaluation of EML in the Norwegian context, and in general, and raises
several issues for our consideration. I would welcome your
comments in the next couple of weeks before I see Gerhard at the
Council of Europe meeting on Nov 23rd. (That meeting is to
review the COE's Recommendation
on e-Voting Standards.)
I do not propose that we delay version 5 any further to debate and
accommodate the points raised in this report but we should table them
for the next release.
Regards
John
M.
+44 (0)7976 157745
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Gerhard Skagestein
<gerhard@ifi.uio.no>
To: johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk
Sent:
Tuesday, 7 November, 2006 3:18:10 PM
Subject: Report on the
suitability of EML for the Norwegian electoral system.
Dear John
Borras,
I have noted that we are going to speak in the same
session in the
Council of Europe
meeting in Strasboug on November 23.
It may be of
interest to you that we have had a master student investigating the
suitability of EML for the Norwegian electoral system.
Her report
may be found on
http://www.duo.uio.no/publ/informatikk/2005/28266/Documentation.pdf
Best
regards
Gerhard Skagestein
Associate
professor
Department of Informatics
University of Oslo
Send instant messages to your online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]