RE: [election-services] EML v5

["Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com>]

Title: RE: [election-services] EML v5

Paul & David -

David's clarification on Party/Affiliation is accurate; Parties are registered legal entities in most jurisdictions, Affiliation is used for endorsing entities (like Unions, AARP, VFW, etc.) that are not normal "Political Parties".

Voter Identifier is the unique number associated with a voter in the system; Voter ID is that Id document, like a driver's license, government id, birth certificate, etc.

Yes, we do use Ranked Choice Voting in various locales, of various methods.

- Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:24 AM
To: Paul Spencer
Cc: eml
Subject: RE: [election-services] EML v5

Paul,

I'd like to "save" these changes and cleanup until we have completed the formal OASIS member review period.  We are still awaiting more input from NIST (hopefully!) on the IEEE precinct level reporting details too - if we receive none - then I propose to add something that will cover this need off based on my understanding - which is so that US implementers do not need to use the separate IEEE schema just for the one instance of complex precinct level reporting (this only effects a limited number of US elections).

On to your questions - "In the core, what is the difference in use between an Affiliation and the new Party?
In the core, what is the difference in use between the new VoterId and the Id that is part of VoterIdentificationStructure?"

Both of these were added for US usage.  My understanding of affiliation vis party in this US context is that one is a formal relationship - the other is an alignment - the nuances of this are specific to US practice.   Similarly VoterID was explicitly added for US Pollbook implementations.  I suspect Id in VoterIdentificationStructure could be an alternate here - but we'd have to compare the datatyping and structure aspects to see if they are truely interchangable.

BTW - I've just found that the US have RCV counting as well as STV - so that token needs to be added to the list of counting mechanism types.

Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [election-services] EML v5
> From: "Paul Spencer" <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>
> Date: Wed, April 11, 2007 8:30 am
> To: "eml" <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> I did not have a chance to review EML before it went to committee
> vote, so
> John asked to make comments during the public consultation.
>
> I have a few immediate comments, which I attach. Two relate to the
> schemas,
> and so are probably mainly for David, the others to the documentation,
> which
> I feel needs some further updating. I have not done a detailed review,
> partly because this would take several days and partly because the
> general
> comments serve to cover most areas.
>
> I have also been thinking about the future of EML, and will send a
> separate
> email.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Spencer
> Director
> Boynings Consulting Ltd
> http://boynings.co.uk