ET.gov Project Planning Meeting
August 18, 2004
Agenda
Meeting Objective:
- Clear
understanding of
- Project
motivation
- Desired
immediate, intermediate, end, and indirect outcomes
- Approach
to achieve those outcomes
- Project
deliverable(s) & timeline
- Roles
& responsibilities
- Logistical
issues
Project Motivation:
Inability
of agency chief information officers (CIOs) to
respond effectively to myriad vendors and other proponents of technology
components -- particularly those which are new, innovative, and perhaps
untested and unproven in practical application.
Desired Outcomes:
- Immediate
- Easy discovery of ET components of interest to users via browsable & searchable metadata
- Hypertext links to additional information about such
components
- Intermediate
- An expanding and changing set of proposed ET components for
potential, technical assessment
- A process for the technical assessment of ET components that
is sustainable and self-supporting
- End
- A process whereby the entire life-cycle of ET components can
be efficiently and effectively managed on a governmentwide
basis
- Well-coordinated acquisition, implementation, and use of
logically separable technology components for potential “governmentwise” usage
Approach:
Through the application of open,
reusable, standards-compliant, Web-based, XML-enabled service components,
communities of practice (CoP) will be enabled to more
easily identify themselves for collaboration around proposed ET components.
Deliverables & Timeline:
- Immediate
- Finalized
XSD for Stage 1, Identification
- Root
element
- <Information
Technology>?
- <Technology>?
(More reusable)
- Relatively
small number of elements
- ET.gov
site, comprised of
- eForm enabling the creation of valid XML instance
documents
- Xforms?
- Partner-sponsored/hosted
eForms components?
- eGov Business Gateway
- Adobe/PDF-XML?
- PureEdge/XFDL?
- MS/InfoPath?
- Industry
Advisory Council (IAC)?
- Information
Technology Association of America
(ITAA)?
- Council
for Excellence in Government (CEG)?
- Others?
- Searchable/browsable index of selected elements of those
documents, wherever they may be posted on the Web
- Partner-sponsored/hosted
indices?
- FirstGov
- IAC?
- ITAA?
- CEG?
- Google?
- Yahoo?
- MSN?
- Others?
- Intermediate
(subject to availability of resources)
- Demo
ET.gov site/Stage 1 at XML 2004 conference?
- Stage
2, Subscription
- XSD
- Browsable, sortable,
searchable indices of selected elements
- Summary
tabulations of numeric values
- Web
Services interface(s)?
- RSS?
- WSRP?
- UDDI,
WSDL, etc.?
- Stage
3, Stewardship
- XSD
- eForm
- Index
of Lead Stewards
- End
- Stage
4, Technical Maturation*
- XSD
- eForm
- Index
- Suggested
criteria for priority consideration of ET components by Components S/C?
- Indirect
- Reusable
components
- Foster
concept of reusable XML components widely distributed and openly
available on the Web
- Valid
XML instance documents
- Appropriate
elements of metadata embedded
- Ease
of discovery, assessment, and use via specialized indices
- Automated
indexing of valid XML instance documents
- Vendor,
association, or CoP determines “validity”
Roles & Responsibilities:
- Project
Co-Leaders
- Owen
Ambur, Co-Chair, XML Community of Practice (xmlCoP)
- Who
else?
- GSA
Advisor
- Technical
Lead
- Josiah
Cushing, Booz Allen Hamilton (?)
- IAC Partnership
Leaders (?)
- Joe Brophy, StoneWater Systems
- Kristina Olanders,
LMI
- Other
Partnership Leaders?
- ITAA?
- CEG?
- National
Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO)?
- FirstGov?
- Department
of Homeland Security (DHS)?
- Vendor
information database
- Partnerships
liaison?
Logistical Issues:
- Hosting
facilities
- Administration
of funding, EVM, etc.
- Others?
_________________________________________
*The end outcome as far as the role of the ET S/C is
concerned is a determination of the technical
viability of proposed ET components. At
that point, the responsibility for further consideration of the practicality
and economic feasibility of each component would pass to: a) individual
agencies, b) groups of agencies as CoPs, and c) the
Components Subcommittee with respect to components that are candidates for use
by many agencies or Governmentwide.
References:
http://xml.gov/draft/etLifeCycle.htm
http://xml.gov/draft/ETComponentIdentificationWorkplan.htm
http://xml.gov/draft/etsc300form1stStage.htm
http://xml.gov/draft/InformationTechnologyComponentIdentification.xsd
http://xml.gov/draft/ETLifeCycleStage2.htm
http://xml.gov/draft/ETLifeCycleStage3.htm