XML Community of Practice

Meeting Notes

January 18, 2006

This meeting was hosted by the Government Printing Office (GPO) in Washington, DC.

Owen Ambur announced that he would be making a presentation at the Records and Information Management (RIM) conference on January 18. [Editor’s note: That presentation is available at http://xml.gov/documents/completed/arkgroup/rim.pdf.] He noted that Microsoft will host the February 15 meeting of the xmlCoP and that GEFEG and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) will be making a presentation on the XML schema they are specifying for earned value management (EVM). He mentioned that the April meeting of the xmlCoP might be conducted as a town hall at the Knowledge Management (KM) conference, in lieu of or in addition to the regular monthly meeting.

Owen also noted that Brand Niemann has invited the xmlCoP to determine the agenda for the February 2 teleconference of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Data Reference Model (DRM) Implementation Through Iteration and Testing (ITIT) team. A likely topic of discussion is prospects for incorporating an element into the ET.gov schema to enable categorization of components and specifications under the three top-level “standardization areas” of the DRM – Data Description, Data Context, and Data Sharing. He also suggested that identifying the life events taxonomy that has been drafted for FirstGov and establishing it as an authoritative taxonomy for “citizen centered” eGov projects might be good pilot for the DRM. In that regard, he apprised the group of the forum to be conducted by the Federal Information and Records Managers (FIRM) Council at FOSE, the theme of which will be “Records of Life Events in a Citizen Centered Government.”

Finally, Owen called to the group’s attention the fact that the charter for the xmlCoP lapses on September 30, 2006. Thus, the question occurs as to whether to seek extension or whether the CoP may have served its useful life and should be allowed to expire. He also mentioned that he is now eligible to retire and is thinking about doing so in January 2007. Thus, if the charter of the xmlCoP is to be extended, new leadership will be required. Although Owen has expressed interest in continuing to support the xmlCoP on a voluntary basis in retirement, if the group is to continue to have credibility, it will be necessary for one or more government employees to step forward in a leadership role. [Editor’s note: The xmlCoP’s charter is available at http://xml.gov/documents/completed/charter.htm.]

Adam Schwartz of GPO, who is leading the Strategy Markup Language (StratML) CoP, briefed the group on plans the initiative. He discussed the history and scope of the effort, outlined the project plan, highlighted a two-phased approach, and laid out a projected time line. A business case is being drafted for StratML and once is has been vetted with OMB, the CIO Council, and CFO Council, a meeting of the StratML CoP will be scheduled. In the meantime, those who may wish to participate should contact Adam at the address provided in his presentation, which is available at http://xml.gov/presentations/gpo/stratml20060118_files/frame.htm

Brand Niemann commented that there are difficulties associated with the use of XML schemas for large documents, and that the Knowledge Management Work Group (KM WG) has asked the Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP) to address that issue. He mentioned the need for a knowledge reference model and noted that the three stages are to conceptualize, mark up, and execute the model. Toward that end, SICoP is considering DITA and SCORM. Brand also mentioned the Ontolog Forum’s February 2 meeting and noted that Rick Murphy would be speaking on the FEA Model Maintenance Process at the Collaboration Expedition Workshop on January 24. [Editor’s note: The agenda for that meeting is available at http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ExpeditionWorkshop/AdvancingCredibleCommitments_AgileSensing_BootstrappingServiceOrientedArchitecture_2006_01_24.]

Paul Macias (LMI) and Greg Wilson (LMI) updated the group on the status of the XML Naming and Design Rules and Guidelines (NDRG) document. Paul walked the group through the changes made to sections 1 through 3 of the draft. The group consensus was that more time was required to review the updated sections fully. Paul advised the group that a review of the proposed completion schedule was forthcoming to accommodate for this time (see below).

Joe Chiusano commented that section 2, relating to message exchange patterns, constitutes an unwarranted expansion of scope and addresses only a small part of the subject. Greg and Paul noted that the inclusion of this content is meant to serve as a suggestion to Federal implementers of XML that they should try to design a consistent approach to errors and message exchange as possible. They added that inclusion of this subsection will help to lower the barrier to interoperability (in addition to the content naming rules and guidelines) but that the CoP is welcome to remove this section if that’s the wisdom of the group. Ken Sall suggested that Figure 2-4 should be expressed as notes rather than as rules, and the group agreed with that approach.

Paul indicated the remaining sections of the draft would be distributed on February 8, with a telecon scheduled for February 13. Ken indicated that time would be needed for reviewers to digest the additional sections of the draft. Sylvia Webb asked about plans to test the NDRG and noted that UBL and UN/CEFACT are using EDIFIX to test their proposed rules. Ken reiterated that he has been requesting examples since June of last year. Paul noted that CEFACT allows for local declaration of elements but that otherwise their rules and the NDRG are very close. However, that issue affects modularity quite a bit. With respect to testing, Brand mentioned a pilot of UDEF as a means of making data machine processable. He also indicated NIH is coming up with a way to incorporate testing into a global registry. Finally, he noted that IPv6 will enable assignment of a unique IP address to each concept/element.

KC Morris reiterated Sylvia’s question with regard to how compliance with the NDRG will be tested. Owen suggested that they be tested with StratML, and upon reflection, Ken agreed that if the NDRG cannot be tested with StratML, it may not be possible to test them with any other schemas either. Brand concluded the dialogue by noting that EPA’s acting CIO has established revision of EPA’s strategic plan as her highest priority.

Greg Wilson’s notes from this meeting are available at http://xml.gov/documents/completed/lmi3/20060118meetingnotes.htm

Those who registered their presence at this meeting were: 

Owen Ambur, Co-Chair, xmlCoP

Daniel Bennett, Advocacy Inc.

Joe Chiusano, Booz Allen

Amin Hassam, i411

Joab Jackson, GCN

Paul Macias, LMI

KC Morris, NIST

Brand Niemann, EPA

Greg Wilson, LMI

Those who identified themselves on the teleconference line included:

Tom Merkle, NIJ

Mike Norton

Ken Sall, SAIC

Sylvia Webb, GEFEG

Please convey any additions or corrections to Owen_Ambur@ios.doi.gov