Re: [election-services] EML60Analysis

[Richard Cardone <richcar@magneticpotato.net>]

John,

You're absolutely right:  The raw analysis data give us 47 points of 
interest in the schemas with regard to name usage.  These points of 
interest range from mere curiosities, to easy-to-fix inconsistencies, to 
areas where deeper thinking might be warranted.  Given scheduling and 
other considerations, I expect that taking no action will be the most 
judicious approach in many cases.  On the other hand, there's low 
hanging fruit, like removing the duplicate type definition for 
<Proposer> or uniformly capitalizing the attribute name "reportType".  
As usual, it's the cases in the middle that will take the most time.

The trigger for writing the analysis program was that EML 6.0 will soon 
be frozen--even simple housekeeping chores will be difficult after 
approval.  Given that EML comprises a thousand some odd definitions, I 
wanted some way to characterize usability aspects of the schemas as a 
whole.  The schemas are already in very good condition, maybe this 
analysis can provide some fine tuning.

As far as moving forward goes, we could categorize the points of 
interest according to several criteria, such as implementation effort, 
expected short-term improvement, expected long-term improvement, and 
level of disruption to installed base.  Once we perform this vetting, we 
can determine what's feasible within whatever time/resource constraints 
we have.

Rich