RE: [election-services] Fw: VIP/EML CONVERGENCE

David/Peter

I'm copying this reply to the TC as I believe they need to be aware of these discussions for future decisions once we've completed our current efforts with the VIP team.

We included CIQ in EML as the default address standard in the absence of anything else but anticipated that most countries would supplement this with their own national address standard as we did with BS766 here in UK. If we are clear that USA doesn't have an equivalent to BS7666 then we will need to agree whether we should therefore seek to "impose" CIQ on the Americans. I don't know how we get their agreement on this but that's something we will need to sort out. If we do use CIQ then we should certainly look for a cut down version as David has indicated and one that is forward compatible with CIQ v3.

What I'm seeing out of this VIP work and our earlier efforts on the EAC's draft guidelines is the need for us to produce a USA localisation of EML similar to the UK one. I don't see any other outfit doing it, and whilst it would require time and effort by some/all of us it would give you suppliers the inside track in the market as and when we get some take-up of EML in US. Certainly this VIP project looks as though it can help us with and we should be able to build on the markets they are already creating.

So back to my introduction, at some point in the near future I will be asking the TC to consider and approve creating the USA version of EML. Whether we do that for v5 or await until we have a v6 is a matter for discussion.

Any initial thoughts on this would be appreciated

Regards
John

M. +44 (0)7976 157745
Skype: gov3john

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info>
To: "Zelechoski,Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com>
Cc: Aaron B Strauss <aaronbs@gmail.com>; Doug Chapin <dougchapinjr@gmail.com>; paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk; Richard J Cardone <richcar@us.ibm.com>; joehall@gmail.com; John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 17 July, 2008 8:49:47 PM
Subject: RE: VIP/EML CONVERGENCE

Peter / John,

We already have CIQ in the schemas since EML V3 way-back!

It's the CIQ stuff that is the bear here.

Example EML 210 - contains 20,000+ lines of definition from CIQ - and only 1,000 lines for our EML part!!!!

I have it tamed though with the tooling I've developed for NIEM work and EDXL - so that the CIQ is just a hundred lines of so.

Basically the NIEM approach creates a want list - and applies that to the base schema to come up with a subset - so users only see that minimal list.

The trick here is to make that subset wantlist match US postal addresses using CIQ v2.

Also that subset will provide forward compatibility to the new CIQ v3 - so it will only be a small change to adopt that when we are ready to do EML V6.

Will provide more on this next week - and an example you can review.

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: VIP/EML CONVERGENCE
From: "Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com>
Date: Thu, July 17, 2008 8:57 am
To: "John Borras" <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>,"David RR Webber (XML)"
<david@drrw.info>
Cc: "Aaron B Strauss" <aaronbs@gmail.com>,"Doug Chapin"
<dougchapinjr@gmail.com>,<paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>,"Richard J
Cardone" <richcar@us.ibm.com>,<joehall@gmail.com>

John , et al. -

There are standards that cover specific uses but there is no generally accepted standard for the general use. Some just use textual line addresses (123 North Jones Street, Suite 100); others use part-wise addresses. Most do split out the City, State, Postal Code as separate entities. I would think most common is a 3 line textual address with the additional elements of City, State, Postal Code but there will be many that only use 2 textual lines.

I would agree that we don't need to rush to support CIQ until we prioritize work for v6.

- Peter

From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:26 AM
To: David RR Webber (XML)
Cc: Aaron B Strauss; Doug Chapin; paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk; Zelechoski, Peter; Richard J Cardone; joehall@gmail.com
Subject: Re: VIP/EML CONVERGENCE

David

As I said in me earlier note, the handling of USA addresses is one issue we need to resolve.  Do you have a recognised address "standard" like BS7666 here in UK or have we got to use CIQ v2/v3 as the way forward for VIP and others? Using CIQ v2 would seem to be a waste of time to me. We have CIQ v3 on the EML v6 Wish List and I do not want to do a v5.xx whilst ISO are deliberating, it will only confuse things.

Regards
John

M. +44 (0)7976 157745
Skype: gov3john

----- Original Message ----
From: David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info>
To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: Aaron B Strauss <aaronbs@gmail.com>; Doug Chapin <dougchapinjr@gmail.com>; paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk; pzelechoski@essvote.com; Richard J Cardone <richcar@us.ibm.com>; joehall@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, 16 July, 2008 6:33:33 PM
Subject: RE: VIP/EML CONVERGENCE

John,

Great analysis.

I will see what I can do.

I'm still up to my eyes in XSLT and Java doing performance optimization on the EML toolkit.   We've slipped couple of weeks on that - but getting ever closer on being able to release that for everyone (we have the end-to-end done - just making it run much faster now - and covering off usability issues and being able to offer a clear way to manage the CIQ v2 XSD tar ball sub-setting specifically).

Based on what I currently see - here's the various possible paths forward (obviously I'm not making any judgements on LOE / feasibility etc until we've done the detailed look at the exact crosswalks.

A) Take existing EML 5.0 and more particularly CIQ v2 and figure out crosswalk and implementation convention to support VIP functionality.

B) Step up to CIQ v3 and release an EML 5.x with crosswalk and implementation convention (assumes CIQ v3 needed to cover off VIP wish list)

C) As with B) - but in addition extend EML itself - not just swap out of CIQ - assumes not everything needed can be covered by CIQ changes alone.

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: VIP/EML CONVERGENCE
From: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, July 16, 2008 12:01 pm
To: Aaron B Strauss <aaronbs@gmail.com>, Doug Chapin
<dougchapinjr@gmail.com>, "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>,
paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk, pzelechoski@essvote.com, Richard J Cardone
<richcar@us.ibm.com>, joehall@gmail.com

Thanks to all for the productive call earlier. Attached as promised is my initial analysis of the VIP and EML data elements overlap.

I am looking to my colleagues, particularly Paul and David, to confirm my analysis  including suggestions for exactly how we would implement the VIP requirement using EML.  The prime area of USA address handling within EML needs particular consideration as do things like Ballot Drop and Campaign Issues. From this we can draw up a list of possible EML enhancements and then the OASIS committee can decide how and when to deal with them.

Recognising that you all have day jobs to do as well but it would be good if we could complete this tranche of work within the next couple of weeks. So replies by the end of July if possible please.

Regards
John

M. +44 (0)7976 157745
Skype: gov3john

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

election-services message