Federal CIO Council XML Working Group
Meeting Minutes, September 19, 2001
American Institute of Architects, Frank
Lloyd Wright Room
Please send all
comments on/corrections to these minutes to Laura
Green.
Working Group co-chair Owen Ambur convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. at
the American Institute of Architects. Attendees introduced themselves.
Office of
Justice Programs and Department of Justice XML-Related Activities with State
and Local Governments.
Pat McCreary made a few introductory remarks regarding the XML initiatives ongoing in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs (OJP). Mr. McCreary told the WG that the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is the technology initiative arm of the Office of Justice Programs, which is, in turn, the state and local implementation arm of the DOJ. “GLOBAL” is a body sponsored by OJP and is considered a “group of groups” in the justice community. OJP has been working with GLOBAL for six to nine months.
The OJP and DOT have signed a memorandum of understanding in a common effort to coordinate standards development in several areas.
The OJP has a website prototype with some preliminary XML information. The OJP hopes to have a data dictionary available on the website soon. Mr. McCreary invited all WG members to look at the website and send in any feedback. It is not intended to be so much a strictly DOJ website as a national website. The URL for the website is http://www.it.ojp.gov/. To access it, please use username “testit” and temporary password “testit.”
Robert Greeves of the OJP then briefed the WG on OJP’s Justice XML Standards Initiative. This presentation is available online in both HTML and Power Point formats.
Because the OJP is at the policy level and coordinates organizations in the justice community, it believed that it would be a good idea to bring these organizations together to standardize their XML specifications. OJP became aware of three major powerbase communities that were out in front implementing XML: the intelligence community, the court community, and the criminal history community. It has been the OJP’s effort to get these three groups working together to work on a standard or even an agreed-upon set of standards.
There are two commonly used terms within the justice community:
The Global Criminal Justice Information Network is comprised of about 30 organizations, most of which are predominantly justice-oriented, but some of which are non-traditional (such as the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures). It is considered a “group of groups” because each member represents a constituency. Its organizational structure includes four subgroups: an outreach committee, a privacy working group, a security working group, and an infrastructure/standards working group. The Infrastructure/Standards Working Group (ISWG) is in charge of policy and technical participation, the process of managing standards, making standards policy recommendations, and other tasks.
The need for justice standards is reflected in practitioner demand, the emergence of overlapping initiatives, increasing demand for information sharing, the emergence of architectures, and the potential for an XML “Tower of Babble.”
Marion Royal (GSA) asked where one could go to find information about the architecture.
Mr. Greeves replied that Elizabeth Miller, the director of NACIO, would be able to provide information. Contact links are available on the OJP website. [Editor’s note: the architecture report can be found at URL http://www.nascio.org/ - click on Publications and scroll down to NASCIO Justice Report—Toward National Sharing of Governmental Information.]
Mr. McCreary informed the working group that GLOBAL meets twice a year. Usually, these meetings are public, and the organization encourages observers. In fact, they would like to have a representative from the WG attend.
Mr. Ambur replied that he is planning to attend the XML portion of the next day’s meeting.
Mr. Greeves told the WG that the Industry Working Group (IWG) was established by OJP to reach out to industry to try and bridge the gap between government and industry to create more of a partnership environment. They have identified someone to lead the group and originally suggested pulling together half dozen companies or so with an interest in what the DOJ is doing. There are now about 60 member companies at this time. The IWG has provided ideas ranging from procurement reform to security. It has put together a course to be taught at Auburn for systems integrators.
Mr. Royal asked how this group tied into the voluntary standards organizations.
Mr. Greeves replied that work with the voluntary standards organizations is done through ISWG on a policy level, and through a combination of NIST, NTIA and their relationship with an Office of Law Enforcement Standards on the working side.
Mr. Greeves then returned to his presentation. In response to the need for justice standards, OJP must leverage GLOBAL links, exploit practitioner demand, take advantage of “Time is Right,” bring together willing parties, and take leadership roles. Some basic assumptions must be made. First, the Justice community will respond to a voluntary program rich in content before it will respond to mandates. Second, the primary responsibility of the Justice Department is to promote information sharing, promote appropriate standards development, and facilitate coordination of efforts--NOT to develop standards. Finally, standards efforts are driven by business problems, not technical or national agendas.
There are several processes involved in the standards process, including identification, submission, and verification.
Mr. Royal asked if, when speaking of standards, Mr. Greeves was referring to data standards or communications standards.
Mr. Greeves responded that he was speaking of all standards. The presentation to the WG will focus only on XML standards.
Mr. Royal asked if that includes things like wireless standards.
Mr. Greeves responded that it did. OJP is initially focusing on information standards and XML right now, but the process is designed to deal with all standards.
Mr. Greeves then showed the WG a slide outlining the characteristics of the standards programs.
OJP’s XML objectives are to facilitate sharing of justice information and integration of justice information systems, to establish “ground floor” standards, to guide and assist justice and public safety information systems developers, and to further other efforts to share information.
OJP is pulling together three major XML initiatives: the Criminal Histories, Law Enforcement Intelligence, and Electronic Court Filing initiatives. The Rap Sheet Standardization initiative is an effort to create a standard rap sheet across state and federal jurisdictions. A standardized rap sheet, when fully implemented, will provide a single, complete response in a consistent format. The Law Enforcement Intelligence Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) initiative seeks to create RISS XML specifications to allow dissimilar systems to communicate criminal intelligence information. The Electronic Court Filing initiative seeks to create a Court Filing Specification to provide a mechanism for attorneys and other users of the court systems to electronically transmit and file court documents in active cases.
The starting point for these initiatives was June 2001. The specifications have been turned over to a group for study.
Mr. Greeves then briefed the WG on the reconciliation work going on within OJP’s XML initiatives. Part One of the reconciliation involved developing principles for XML implementations and reconciliations and beginning the reconciliation of the three XML implementations. While working on this reconciliation, OJP learned the importance of building a relationship and trust between members of the justice community.
Mr. Greeves showed the WG a slide illustrating a sample data element (personName) that underwent the reconciliation process.
Mr. Ambur commented that those who come into the legal system are a subset of all of us; they have attributes that are common to all of us, and OJP’s work is an example of how the government does not need to define “citizen” within ten different stovepipes. The set of elements that define a citizen are very important.
Mr. Greeves passed around a handout that included excerpts from the data dictionary. The first page of the handout was a listing of all data elements that had been agreed to. The second page was an example of the hierarchy of elements.
Mr. McCreary added that the principles provided a foundation, and they tried to include W3C work as much as possible.
Sam Hunting (eTopicality) remarked that the content model for personName is positional in nature. He asked how OJP handles foreign nationals whose names do not go in the same order as western names.
Mr. Greeves replied that the handout is from a draft data dictionary, a starting point. One of the recommendations made at the next day’s meeting would be that there is a need to reach out to the justice base. One of the members of GLOBAL is from Interpol, which should provide some perspective.
Mr. Hunting remarked that that was a process-oriented answer.
Mr. Greeves responded that he was part of a process-oriented group.
Steve Jacek (PureEdge) asked if GLOBAL would be identifying attributes within data elements.
Mr. Greeves replied that it would be.
Mr. Royal asked what the naming conventions would be.
Mr. Greeves replied that naming conventions would be discussed at the end of the presentation.
Mr. Royal asked if the naming conventions were based on ISO 11179.
Mr. Greeves replied that he did not know.
Ken Brooke (Mitretek Systems) added that people are looking at using the ISO 11179 standard, but they have not decided yet.
Walt Houser (VA) asked if the group has a defined namespace registered with anyone else.
Mr. Brooke replied that it is a work in progress.
Mr. Greeves then showed the WG a slide outlining the work of parts two and three of the reconciliation process.
Chetna Lal (GAO) asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the lessons learned report.
Mr. Greeves responded that it is not quite finished yet, but all interested should contact the POCs listed on the presentation slides or on the website. [Editor’s note: D.J. Atkinson may be contacted at dj@it.bldrdoc.gov.]
Mr. Royal asked if there was going to be a registry or repository.
Mr. Greeves replied that the presentation would get to that. The content of the reconciliation report itself includes principles for development of XML specs, procedures for development of XML specs, guidelines used in the reconciliation effort, and a draft XML data dictionary. They want to do away with use of abbreviations except for easily recognizable ones.
The next steps in the process are to institutionalize standards process, to establish justice standards registry program, to submit reconciled XML specs for inclusion in a registry, to identify new XML candidates for the process, and to enter XML data dictionary into standards registry program. Additionally, the group needs to incorporate standards activities into OJP/Global Web site, to promote the XML standards program, to continue to support the development of information sharing standards with an emphasis on XML, and to publish and disseminate the XML reconciliation report.
Mr. Greeves then showed the WG a screenshot of the Justice Standards Registry and a screenshot of the GJIN Standards Submission Form.
OJP’s work is available online at its website at http://www.it.ojp.gov/. All WG members are invited to look at it using User Name “testit” and password “testit.”
Mr. Greeves told the WG that the group realized that the turning point for the group was its third meeting. At the first meeting, members were cautious and noncommittal. At the second meeting, they seemed to be listening to one another a little bit more. At the third meeting, things began to come together.
John Dodd (CSC) asked if Mr. Greeves would recommend doing this in a short period.
Mr. Greeves responded that this was not three months of continuous work. He recommended tailoring for whom one is working with. An interested group should look at some of the principles, procedures, and guidelines and see if they apply to you.
Brand Niemann (EPA) asked if OJP had contract support.
Mr. Greeves replied that there are about a dozen contractors involved.
Mr. Royal asked if this would be a separate markup language, would it be placed into legal XML, or something else.
Mr. Greeves replied that no one has broached that subject yet.
Mr. Royal responded that he was uncomfortable with government creating standards on verticals when it has not even worked on a horizontal level. Then again, the government cannot afford to wait, either.
Mr. Greeves stated that they did not see that coming to a resolution. They recognize that there is a lot of work to do, some of which may need to be redone at some point, but in the meantime, the work has to be done.
Mr. Troutman asked when OJP foresaw being able to search across its registry and repository.
Mr. Greeves responded that the registry exists for a closed community. The length of time it will take to implement XML initiatives in the court community will depend on how long it takes the states to implement. The court filing standards will take two to three years to be implemented by 75% or more of the community. The rap sheets initiative, once it has been approved, will be implemented within a year.
Mr. Niemann asked if, by “implement,” Mr. Greeves meant going forward with new information or dealing with legacy systems.
Mr. Greeves replied that they will have to deal with legacy information. Implementation will be different in every state.
Mr. Houser remarked that, considering recent events, he would imagine that this project will receive heavy funding for such objectives as tracking down people who may be terrorist threats. He asked if OJP was working with the intelligence community with respect to integrating namespaces.
Mr. Greeves replied that there is no work that he is aware of ongoing between law enforcement intelligence and military intelligence.
Mr. Houser opined that customs and INS should be players in this.
Mr. Hunting added that one of the tasks of the intelligence community would be to detect relationships between items of data that are not obvious within the data.
Betsy Schmidt (SoftwareAG) asked if there is a similar reconciliation underway with the CIA.
Mr. Ambur responded that there is an intelligence initiative registered on the XML.gov website.
Ms. Schmidt remarked that there is a need for international representation.
Mr. Troutman pointed out that this sort of standardization will give everyone a reason to want to pull together.
Mr. Brooke remarked that it took the Transportation Department about as many years as it took OJP to do the same work in months.
Mr. Greeves replied that they would have had the same problem if they had tried to do this three or four years ago. Everyone in the justice community believes that XML is the tool. They were able to take advantage of this excitement.
Mr. Ambur remarked that with a combination of that potential and some of the painfully apparent needs that it has right now, there is no reason why the government cannot act quickly.
Mr. Houser asked if there is some sort of demonstration that WG participants could show to the non-tech-oriented CIOs to show that this project is worth assisting.
Mr. Greeves replied that that is the purpose of the initiative’s white paper. It is available on the initiative’s website.
Discussion of Strategic
Plan and Tasks for the XML WG, Co-Chairs and Participants
Mr. Ambur passed out a preliminary copy of the strategic plan. This draft is also available on the XML.gov website. He told the WG that the group has four specific tasks identified: creation of a strategic plan, a registry pilot, harmonization of registry standards, and upgrading the XML.gov site to be more collaborative and to use XML. He also directed the WG’s attention to the list of potential partnerships. The WG should focus on high value partnerships.
Mr. Royal told the WG that part of an OMB-lead initiative’s work is to identify and build upon common business architecture. This will require an examination of data architecture. The WG could help by examining data architecture. He is not convinced that the government should not create its own standard. The OMB-lead initiative has looked hard across industry standards and has not yet found one that would suffice. The WG could help figure out with the government should be doing with regards to a lack of government-wide consensus on these structures, provide naming conventions, etc….
Mr. Brooke remarked that the Transportation Department has experienced a long war over what is the right way to do it—who owns such an initiative. This is a much broader issue than XML and spans many different ways of expressing information beyond XML.
Mr. Royal agreed that this is a problem exclusively for XML. Conversation with defense folks, EDI folks, and others have shown that all of this needs to come together. Waiting for industry to get its act together has not yet yielded any results.
Bill Holcombe (GSA) asked if there is a stated reason why there is no separate government markup language.
Mr. Royal responded that the general sense of the OMB-lead initiative is that every standard the government has tried to create has been unsuccessful. The strategy the group has used to find the middle ground is to bring up the XML registry/repository at XML.gov. The registry/repository is in line to move forward. It will provide agencies with a place they can go.
Mr. Ambur asked the group to consider what the government’s role is. The WG wants to improve the efficiency of the marketplace for ideas and help the government carry out its work better.
Michael Jacobs (DON CIO) asked if the registry pilot included a management structure that would manage the information, reduce conflicts, and avoid redundant tags.
Mr. Royal replied that his vision was that when the registry receives a registration request, the registrar would look to industry to see if the tag or standard already exists, then point the user to the place where it already is.
Mr. Brooke asked if the WG registry would insist on isomorphism. In Transportation, there is no expectation that disagreements will be resolved, but there is the expectation that whatever procedure it is will be able to define the language spoken by others.
Mr. Jacobs told the WG that that is what is happening with the DoD registry right now. Its philosophy is one of visibility, not of control.
Mr. Houser stated that his concern is that the WG not forget its role is not to do the technical work but to educate itself. The WG needs to decide what it should be doing as a committee. The WG should serve as a bully pulpit for going back to the CIOs with something they can see, touch, and feel. The CIOs are less interested in theory than they are interested in governance. The WG must be able to focus them on a URL that can be brought up to display what the registry is and how to manipulate it. The WG needs to communicate to the CIO council what this technology is capable of producing.
Mr. Ambur remarked that there is a need for a balance between short-term objectives and longer-term vision. That’s the difference between the XML WG’s registry/repository pilot and the longer-term harmonization of registry/repository standards. (See task 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2 at http://xml.gov/tasks.htm.)
Mr. Royal pointed out that “standardization” is not the correct word to use. OMB would say that the CIO council does not create policy, OMB does. This is message being sent to all working groups. What this WG can do is make recommendations for standards it thinks would be successful. By doing so, the WG might influence industries that are going in a different direction.
Mr. Houser added that it is important that the WG's recommendations pass the “so what” test. The CIOs must be convinced of why it is important to spend money on this.
Mr. Niemann remarked that if the WG is trying to start by solving the most difficult XML problem first, it will take a lot of political and technical work for years. There are places in agencies where the WG can make an immediate difference. These agencies have databases where they can move all tags into XML. The WG should begin pursuing the XML data hub within agencies. Eventually there will come a point where the agencies can begin to integrate.
Mr. Royal agreed to an extent. He commented that there is a lot of redundancy in government. Each agency has an average of 30 business lines, but many of the agencies work the same business line. The WG needs to consider how agencies can simplify and unify.
Mr. Niemann pointed out that this can be done with an XML content-based network like the one used for FedStats. He suggested creating an umbrella organization that has already dealt with the politics of the issue when seeking to bring initiatives together.
Mr. Royal did not think it was possible to build a markup language that has all of the stuff agencies want. He would like to see agreement on a core set of data elements.
Mr. Holcombe asked what was meant by “business line.”
Mr. Royal relied that an example of a business line would be grants. Until recently, different grant-offering organizations within single agencies did not talk to each other. The WG must ask how it can combine these resources and simplify the process so the citizen does not have to go with each of these stovepipes to get a grant. There is a need to identify different partners, processes, data and process models.
Mr. Houser pointed out that the focus here is the need to look for customers or sponsors. The WG will not have funding to overcome the incompatibilities or research.
Mr. Greeves stated that the WG needs to be aware that there are no good ways of getting manager’s hands around how these business lines integrate.
Next Meeting: October
17.
Attendance Roster:
|
Last Name |
First Name |
Organization |
|
Ambur |
Owen |
Interior-FWS |
|
Blewett |
Jay |
DOE |
|
Brooke |
Ken |
Mitretek Systems |
|
Daukantas |
Patricia |
Government Computer News |
|
Dodd |
John |
CSC |
|
Giguire |
Mark |
NARA |
|
Greeves |
Robert |
DOJ |
|
Houser |
Walt |
VA |
|
Hunt |
Jim |
GSA |
|
Hunting |
Sam |
eTopicality |
|
Jacek |
Steve |
PureEdge Systems |
|
Jacobs |
Michael |
DON CIO |
|
Lal |
Chetna |
GAO |
|
Males |
David |
i4i |
|
McCreary |
Patrick |
DOJ |
|
Niemann |
Brand |
EPA |
|
Poot |
Lex |
DTS |
|
Royal |
Marion |
GSA |
|
Schmidt |
Elizabeth |
Software AG |
|
Schneider |
Dan |
DOJ |
|
Sinisgalli |
Mike |
Vitria |
|
Troutman |
Bruce |
8020Data |
|
Vineski |
Steve |
EPA |
|
Weiland |
John |
NMIMC |
|
Yee |
Theresa |
LMI |