RE: [election-services-comment] PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS DISPOSITION

["John Borras" <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>]

Guys here’s how I see the way forward:

 

1.       v6.0  - get v6 approved as Committee Spec and then when appropriate go for OASIS Standard approval.

               

2.       IEEE/P1622 – liaise with/support their ongoing efforts

 

3.       Audit Req’ts – analyze/build a full audit spec as v7.  Start this as soon as Neal joins the TC.

 

4.       Implementation Guidance – produce a range of aids to assist first-time developers.  These should definitely not be included as part the Spec, they would be what it says just “guidance”.

 

I think much of this can go on in parallel and certainly it doesn’t all have to be sequential.  But the order above shows my opinion of priorities.  I’ll be kicking off the Committee Spec stage ballot next week and once that is out of the way then we can turn our attention to the other aspects and sketch out who is going to do what.  We will probably need a TC call after the vacation period to get this all together.

 

John

 

From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 29 July 2010 22:29
To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Cc: John Borras; EML TC
Subject: RE: [election-services] RE: [election-services-comment] PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS DISPOSITION

 

Joe,

 

Citing Google IMHO here is not very illustrative - they appear to have caught the Microsoft disease of "its a standard because we're using it".

 

I recall that we had to engage them - rather than them making any attempt to work with us - despite them being in OASIS!

 

But I take the point that generally with any new development - there's a choice - go ahead and roll something customer specific - or reach out for open standards to leverage.

 

The more quick start resources we can provide people - clearly the better - and of course eating our own dog food - primer available:

 

 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=34490

 

I'm encouraged that we have more adopters more willing to share code and examples now - than any time previously.

 

Cheers, DW

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [election-services] RE: [election-services-comment] PUBLIC
REVIEW COMMENTS DISPOSITION
From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, July 29, 2010 3:38 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>, EML TC
<election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:07 PM, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:
> I would suggest however when providing more examples - this is best handled
> outside of the formal specification.

I guess the feedback I get here is that "diving into" EML is very
difficult for developers... to the extent that, like Google/Pew, they
decide to simply roll their own solution. If we want people other
than those already using it to use it, we need to recognize that this
complexity is somewhat of a barrier and provide (whether formally or
informally) tools and examples that contextualize the elements of
EML... we've made some strides, but I'm not yet convinced we're there
yet (and I have only so much capacity to help). For example, maybe
this is a consequence of my only being involved with this TC and not a
few other OASIS TCs, but I don't know what CAM is and how to use it
(other than what wikipedia tells me).

Anyway... what I'm thinking of is an "EML for dummies", I suppose. I
know that's not terribly sexy, but I'd like to try and have something
like that for 7.0. And maybe I'm not seeing the full picture... best,
Joe

--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/