OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

huml message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: XML Schema for Peer Reviews?


Title: RE: XML Schema for Peer Reviews?
Hi Owen,

I will bring it up in our TC meeting this Wednesday, and I'm copying this to the TC list. I think that this issue in particular nicely frames an area where "Mediation" could contribute. One of the tasks for which HumanML is suited comes into play in the way that a specific context, such as Academia as distinct from Jurisprudence or Finance, requires some additional qualifications for what constitutes a "peer." It should make for an interesting discussion.

This is the url for the pdf of the OMB's: Proposed Bulletin under Executive Order 12866 and supplemental  quality guidelines

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/peer_review_and_info_quality.pdf

And this is a direct quote:
 SUMMARY: As part of an ongoing effort to improve the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by the federal government to the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in coordination with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), proposes to issue new guidance to realize the benefits of meaningful peer review of the most important science disseminated by the federal government regarding regulatory topics.

To TC members, I suggest we read this Proposal and the material on the pilot page to which Owen has supplied a url link immediately below. Since I will be suggesting that we register either the OASIS HumanMarkup TC or Humanmakrup.org, Inc., or both, it is needful to study the pilot program. I would also like to mention that this approach is not limited to Owen's initiative, as the following link to the FGDC Component Contract page:

 http://www.fgdc.gov/geoportal/

The upcoming presentation we will be making is an expressly collaborative effort, showcasing itself as an example of this kind of process, a set of components combining together to provide a significant benefit. The process of requesting qualified entities to contribute information about their services and products (components such as our Primary Base Schema but more particularly exemplified by our planned, application-specific Secondary Schemata) allowing candidate providers, (such as us) a method for detailing how these products and services can improve existing and potential government programs, is, in itself, a significant improvement over the current process, as I can attest from my attempt to find grant program-specific instructions amongst the newly-created SBIR/STTR programs that have been extended to NSF and DHS, especially in HSARPA, the DHS equivalent of DARPA.

That's all my way of saying, "This is important."

Ciao,
Rex

Rex, if you think this will be of interest to your HumanML colleagues, feel
free to share it with them.

Also, with respect to the ET pilot and the town hall meeting at the XML
2003 conference, I'll look forward to any comments and suggestions you and
your colleagues may have with respect to how elements defining "peers"
and/or "stakeholders" might best be represented in the XSD(s) comprising
the ET life-cycle.  http://www.eccnet.com/ET-Register/

Owen



                                                                                                    
                      Rex Brooks                                                                    
                      <rexb@starbourne         To:      Owen_Ambur@fws.gov, Rex Brooks              
                      .com>                    <rexb@starbourne.com>                                
                                               cc:                                                  
                      11/12/2003 07:24         Subject: RE: XML Schema for Peer Reviews?            
                      PM                                                                            
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    




That's an intriguing concept for the new "Mediation" SC, which is the
logical outgrowth of the SC that has gone from "Diplomacy" to
"Conflict Resolution" to "Bridging Perspectives" and now, to
"Mediation." It is taking some doing, but we may have found the right
person to be the chair of that subcommittee. The follow-through
remains to be accomplished, and I don't care to tempt the fates by
saying anything yet, but finding a chair to focus the efforts of the
group is the first step toward building any of our secondary
vocabularies, but I would say that it would be essential to make the
distinction between "stakeholder" and "peer" in that context, as well
as for academic, social, governmental, purposes. I would like to post
this to the TC list, so I would like your okay for that. We can make
it a topic for our monthly meeting next week.

Thanks,
Rex

At 5:20 PM -0500 11/12/03, Owen_Ambur@fws.gov wrote:
>Rex, while I have not had time to check, I seriously doubt that the
>information quality legislation includes any recognition of the technical
>specifications required to ensure that the policy it espouses can actually
>and effectively be carried out.  While every agency will be expected to
>"comply" with the guidance, in one way or another, it is likely they will
>do so in ways that are both needlessly redundant as well as relatively
>ineffectual and unmeasurable.  Thus, while I have no illusions about my
>ability to effect a more effective and well-coordinated response to the
>common requirement for peer review, I will certainly be on the lookout for
>opportunities to do so.  In particular, I will be anxious to learn of any
>initiatives in the SDO community to specify XSDs representing the elements
>of the peer review process.
>
>Along with an XSD for strategic plans, I believe specification of an XSD
>for the peer review process is among the most potent actions the
proponents
>of the semantic Web might take.  Yet another would be specification of the
>"stakeholder involvement" process.  Perhaps HumanML might help to
>distinguish between "peers" versus "stakeholders".
>
>Owen
>
>
>
>
>

>                       Rex
>Brooks

>                       <rexb@starbourne         To:
>Owen_Ambur@fws.gov, RRugg55041@aol.com,
>                       .com>                    rexb@starbourne.com,
>rkthunga@interposting.com,
>
>susan.turnbull@gsa.gov
>                       11/06/03 09:32
>cc:
>                       AM                       Subject: RE: XML
>Schema for Peer Reviews?
>
>

>
>

>
>
>
>
>Hi Owen,
>
>This topic of an XML Schema for governmental peer-reviews is
>intriguing for me for a couple of aspects.
>
>One is that I am sure we in the HumanMarkup TC and/or
>Humanmarkup.org, Inc. would be pleased to be included in any way that
>we can contribute.
>
>Another is that, following from the paper I compiled on Human-Centric
>Convergent Standards, to start the Human Physical Characteristics
>Description ML subcommittee, I think an important first consideration
>in any such standards effort, even one in an inter-governmental
>context such as this, is to address metadata, data syntax notation
>and naming standards.
>
>I discovered that ISO 11179 quickly settled out as the most
>significant standard for metadata  based on recommendations by
>experts and my own research. (And I noted that your working group
>recommended it to the CIO Council). Next, I found ASN.1 (ISO 8824-1
>to 4) for abstract syntax notation for data. Following this is the
>not-quite-baked XNS 1.0 of XNSORG for extensivle naming conventions.
>
>While this may be old news or no news, I thought I would pass it
>along. The first two will be folded into all of my own current and
>future work. The third is not ready, nor has it reached the kind of
>acceptance I would hope to see. ASN.1 has a number of concerns
>attached to it stemming from its long and rather tortuous history,
>but still holds up better than most coeval standards.
>
>I mention this because I did not see the issues these standards
>represent mentioned in the information quality concerns cited in the
>OMB bulletin proposal. They may perhaps be subsumed in the
>legislation quoted, but I don't have the time to drill down into
>that. Regardless, I believe some universal formulation for normative
>reference to the former two, with an eye toward eventually including
>the last (leaving a placeholder for naming conventions following
>metadata and data notation/rules) is needed in the not too distant
>future.
>
>Just a thought, or two.
>
>Thanks for considering us,
>Rex
>
>At 10:00 PM -0500 11/5/03, Owen_Ambur@fws.gov wrote:
>>Russ, et al., FYI w/re the separate reply I just sent you.
>>
>>Owen
>>
>>----- Forwarded by Owen Ambur/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 11/05/2003 09:56 PM -----
>>
>>
>
>>                        Owen Ambur
>>                                                 To:      "David
>>Skurnik" <dskurnik@dclab.com>
>>                        11/04/2003 09:37         cc:
>>harvey@eccnet.com, ksall@silosmashers.com,
>>                        PM
>>Jay.DiSilvestri@corel.com, shunting@etopicality.com
>>                                                 Subject: RE: XML
>>Schema for Peer Reviews?(Document link:
>>                                                 Owen
>>Ambur)
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful response, David.  I'll be
interested
>>to see whether any of the other folks pick up on this notion and, if so,
>>what we might be able to make of it.
>>
>>BTW, I have not reviewed OMB's draft peer review standards nor was I able
>>to locate them on OMB's site.  However, I was able to locate them via
>>Google, at
>>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/peer_review_and_info_quality.pdf &
>>http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:r8MMZv0QFlIJ:www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/peer_review_and_info_quality.pdf+Peer+Review+of+Especially+Significant+Regulatory+Information:+Implications+for+Agency&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

>
>>    (I'm not sure if the latter link will work for you, but it references
>the
>>HTML rendition provided by Google.  The PDF rendition will not display
for
>>me, so I had to access the HTML version in order to view it.)
>>
>>I'm copying Betty, Ken, Sam, and Jay because, while I would not want peer
>>review to become a major focus of the ET process right now, it bears more
>>than a passing relationship to the expertise elements of Stage 2 of the
>>process as well as the verification/validation elements of Stage 3.  See
>>http://xml.gov/draft/ETLifeCycleStage2.htm &
>>http://xml.gov/draft/ETLifeCycleStage3.htm &
>>http://xml.gov/working_group.asp#et
>>
>>Coincidentally, I see that the American Geophysical Union is referenced
in
>>OMB's notice, which is where Betty conducts her monthly DC Area XML UG
>>meetings.
>>
>>Also, BTW, while the agenda for the November 12 meeting of the xmlWG has
>>not been determined yet, I plan to engage participants in dialogue
>>concerning the elements of Stage 3 of the ET process, building upon the
>>consensus building dialogue on the elements of Stages 1 & 2 at our last
>two
>>meetings.
>>
>>Owen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>                        "David
>>Skurnik"
>
>>                        <dskurnik@dclab.         To:
>><Owen_Ambur@fws.gov>
>>                        com>                     cc:
>><bassg@ombwatch.org>,
>>
>><Niemann.Brand@epamail.epa.gov>, <Bette.Fugitt@usda.gov>,
>>                        11/04/2003 01:29
>><susan.turnbull@gsa.gov>, <amazza@nas.edu>,
>>                        PM
>><dalapeyre@mulberrytech.com>
>>                                                 Subject: RE: XML
>>Schema for Peer Reviews?
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Owen,
>>
>>The Peer Review Process that I was addressing in my seminar was focused
on
>  >the types of technology available attempting to smooth out to the peer
>>review process prior to article acceptance in a scholarly journal.
>>
>>Although I was unable to track down the specific OMB draft bulletin, I am
>>assuming that this bulletin attempted to address the need for uniform
>>quality standards in the peer review process.
>>
>>This is a very significant issue since the government disseminates
>>information that was gathered from a plethora of sources uncontrolled by
>>the government - many with very lax quality standards.
>>
>>As you know, we at Data Conversion Laboratory assist several governmental
>>agencies in converting data to SGML and XML for dissemination on the Web
>>and other electronic media and I am not certain that the data is
subjected
>>to a governmental Peer Review accuracy check to ensure that the data
>  >content is actually correct.
>>
>>This can potentially create a serious liability for the Government so I
>can
>>fully understand the logic behind such an initiative.
>>
>>David
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Owen_Ambur@fws.gov [mailto:Owen_Ambur@fws.gov]
>>Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:43 PM
>>To: amazza@nas.edu; dalapeyre@mulberrytech.com; David Skurnik
>>Cc: bassg@ombwatch.org; Niemann.Brand@epamail.epa.gov;
>>Bette.Fugitt@usda.gov; susan.turnbull@gsa.gov
>>Subject: XML Schema for Peer Reviews?
>>
>>
>>Dr. Mazza, it won't be possible for me to attend your November 18 event
>>focusing on the peer review process, about which I learned in the OMB
>>Watcher:  http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1894/1/194/
>However,
>>I would be very interested to learn if anyone has proposed the
>>specification of an XML schema containing the elements that are common to
>>all such processes.  If so, I'd like to engage the xmlWG in support of
>>the perfection and implementation of such a schema.
>>
>>Debbie, the coincidence of the terms "peer review" and "XML" on these
>pages
>>http://www.mulberrytech.com/Extreme/details.html &
>>http://www2.gca.org/extreme/2001/papers.htm prompts me to inquire whether
>>you and/or any of you your Extreme Markup Language colleagues may be
aware
>>of any such effort.
>>
>>David, although it appears your focus may be somewhat different than NAS
>>and OMB Watch, your posting at http://www.dclab.com/ssp2000.asp leads me
>to
>>think you may have interest and expertise along this general line of
>>pursuit.
>>
>>Owen Ambur, Co-Chair
>>XML Working Group
>>http://xml.gov/
>
>
>--
>Rex Brooks
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
>W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
>Email: rexb@starbourne.com
>Tel: 510-849-2309
>Fax: By Request


--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]