The First Step in Managing the IT Innovation Life Cycle:

Emerging Technology Component Proposals Schema/Form

Emerging Technology Subcommittee

September 15, 2003 (minor revision October 16)*

 

The middle column of this table contains the elements proposed by consensus at the September 10, 2003, meeting of the XML Working Group for inclusion in the XML schema (XSD) representing the first stage of the emerging technology components life-cycle management process. The first column maps the proposed elements of the ET process to the elements of the XSD for OMB Circular A-11, Exhibit 300.

 

XSD ELEMENTS

Prompts in Exhibit 300

and Data Types

STAGE 1 of the ET ProcessIDENTIFICATION

COMMENTS

projectName


Name of Investment


type=“omb:projectNameString”

ComponentName


What is the short name of the proposed component?

One of the challenges is to translate between the traditional focus on projects, products, and systems versus the new emphasis on components. Presumably, at some point in the ET process a successfully proposed component will become a “project” in the context of Exhibit 300 and the A-11 budget process. This element would be indexed on the et.gov site and displayed in the first column of the default view, in alphabetical order. Its length should be constrained to provide for reasonable display on the et.gov site.

sponsorOwnerContactInfo


Is there a sponsor/owner for this investment? If so, identify the sponsor/process owner by name and title and provide contact information.


type=“xs.string”

WebAddress


Where on the Web can the XML instance document for this proposed component be accessed for indexing?

In the first stage of the process, all the “contact” information that may be needed is the URL for the XML instance document to be validated against this schema. Other contact information would be optional in Stage 1 but would be specified in Stage 2 – to facilitate the formation of communities of interest through Subscription. The URL would be implicitly indexed on the et.gov site as a link on ComponentName.

descriptionAndCPICStatus


Provide a brief description of this investment and its status through your capital planning and investment control (CPIC) or capital programming “control” review for the current cycle.


type=“omb:richText”

ComponentDescription


Briefly describe the proposed component.

This element would also be displayed, in the second column on the et.gov site. It would be good to constrain its length to encourage wit as well as to ease eye strain and minimize scrolling.

costAndEfficiency


How will this investment reduce costs or improve efficiencies?


type=“omb:richText”

ComponentBenefit


How will this component improve efficiency or effectiveness in relation to other technical alternatives?

In the first stage of the process, this element would be used to indicate what is new and better about the proposed ET component – technically speaking – in relation to alternatives. Economic analyses would occur later in the process. This data would not be indexed on the et.gov site but would be required to be available in the XML instance document at the specified URL. (Invalid documents would not be indexed.)

relationtoFEAServiceCompRefModel


Discuss this major investment in relation to the Service Component Reference Model section of the FEA. Include discussion of the components included in this major IT investment (e.g., knowledge management, content management, customer relationship management, etc.)


type=“omb:richText”

ServiceType


Select the type of service identified in the Service Component Reference Model that best categorizes the function served by this component.

At some point in the process, this element would reference the FEA SRM for a controlled vocabulary of service types. Like the TechnicalStandard element, it would be also be used to enable selective listings of the proposed ET components but would not be displayed in the listing of those components. It may be appropriate to limit each proposal to a single reference to an element of the SRM, on the theory that a single “component” cannot perform more than one “service”.

relationtoFEATRM


Discuss this major IT investment in relationship to the Technical Reference Model section of the FEA. Identify each Service Area, Service Category, Service Standard, and Service Specification that collectively describes the technology supporting the major IT investment.


type=“omb:richText”

TechnicalStandard


Select the appropriate standard or standards that are implemented in this component.

At some point in the process, this element would reference the the FEA TRM for a controlled vocabulary of technical standards. It would not be displayed in the listing of proposed components on the et.gov site but would be used to enable selective listings of the names and brief descriptions of the components. Since more than one element of the TRM may be applicable to any proposed component, this element of the schema should be repeatable. Since ET may not yet implement any recognized standard, an “Other” or “To Be Determined” option should also be provided, along with an enumerated listing of the standards identified in the TRM. Conformance with any standard would not be a requirement during the early stages of the process but probably will be required in subsequent stages, prior to Acquisition, in order to facilitate interoperability.

dataTypesUtilized


What types of data will be used in this investment? Examples of data types are health data, geospatial data, natural resource data, etc.


type=“omb:richText”

DataDomain


If this proposed component uses or represents data for a particular domain or community of practice, please cite it.

At some point in the process, this element would reference the FEA DRM as a controlled vocabulary. However, since the DRM has not been specified yet, it may be appropriate to enable reference to any data model or data type that may be applicable. Initially, this element would not be indexed or displayed on the et.gov site. However, as soon as the DRM is specified, it should be used to enable selective listings of the proposed components. In addition, steps should be taken to consider data models that may be identified in the ET process but not already included in the DRM.

No directly analogous element.

ComponentType


Select the type of component being proposed.

The controlled vocabulary for this element would be: hardware, software, or data. It would not be displayed in the component listing but would be used to provide selective listings of the proposed components. The assumption is that a component can be composed of only one “type” and that a proposal encompassing more than one type may comprise multiple logically separable components, each of which should be registered separately. However, this element would be repeatable in the event that single component may entail more than one type.

 

 

*End note: The initial draft of this tabulation was prepared on May 27, 2003. It was derived from: http://xml.gov/draft/etsc300form.htm This updated draft maps the proposed elements of the first stage of the emerging technology (ET) life-cycle management process to the elements of the XSD for Exhibit 300 as identified in OMB Circular A-11 (2003) for the FY 2005 budget cycle. The source XSD for this document was accessed on September 4 at http://www.cio.gov/documents/OMB300v2.92.xsd (Note: While the URL indicates it is version 2.92, the notation in the XSD itself indicates it is version “1.0".) Changes in this draft compared to its August 27 version, which was based upon version 2.4 of the XSD for Exhibit 300, include: a) addition of the data types specified in the XSD for Exhibit 300, and b) a slight change in the name of the “relationtoFEAServiceComponentRefModel” to “relationtoFEAServiceCompRefModel”. Changes from the September 4 draft include: a) TechnicalStandards is made singular, TechnicalStandard, but the element is repeatable; b) DataTypeOrModel is changed to DataDomain; and c) minor wording changes in the element prompts and the comment fields. Any further changes to the XSD upon which the first column of this tabulation is based may be reflected at http://www.cio.gov/documents/fy2005_final_XML_schema.html. The changes from the September 15 draft include: a) CostAndEfficiency has been more generically renamed ComponentBenefit based upon discussion at the October 15 meeting of the XML Working Group; b) the Comment on that element has been changed to delete reference to the possibility of changing the name to something more generic, like Benefit or Justification; and c) the rows have been reordered to provide for better utilization of the space on the first page for printing.