Project Planning Meeting

August 18, 2004



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




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
    • site, comprised of
      • eForm enabling the creation of valid XML instance documents
        • Xforms?
        • Partner-sponsored/hosted eForms components?
          1. eGov Business Gateway
          2. Adobe/PDF-XML?
          3. PureEdge/XFDL?
          4. MS/InfoPath?
          5. Industry Advisory Council (IAC)?
          6. Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)?
          7. Council for Excellence in Government (CEG)?
          8. Others?
      • Searchable/browsable index of selected elements of those documents, wherever they may be posted on the Web
        • Partner-sponsored/hosted indices?
          1. FirstGov
          2. IAC?
          3. ITAA?
          4. CEG?
          5. Google?
          6. Yahoo?
          7. MSN?
          8. Others?
  • Intermediate (subject to availability of resources)
    • Demo site/Stage 1 at XML 2004 conference?
    • Stage 2, Subscription
      • XSD
      • Browsable, sortable, searchable indices of selected elements
        • XSLT?
        • XTM?
        • XQuery?
      • 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
      • Available in
    • Foster concept of reusable XML components widely distributed and openly available on the Web
      • Valid XML instance documents
        • Including XSDs
      • 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
    • George Thomas
  • 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.