What: An ISO/IEC Standard 11179 compliant registry and repository of the data elements represented in the fields on Standard and Optional Forms (SFs & OFs). The registry/repository may prove to be the most important component of the xml.gov site and the XML Working Group’s strategy.
Where: The registry and repository will be hosted on a Web-enabled server at GSA or NIST. The virtual address will be an extension of xml.gov. However, the standard provides for distributed, federated registries and repositories. Neither the physical nor the virtual locations are as important as the fact that interoperability can be facilitated by compliance with the standard, thereby establishing a single, logical system across distributed sites. To the degree that other organizations, including State and local agencies, may have resources to support interoperating repositories, it is in the interest of everyone to capitalize on such capabilities.
When: The registry and repository will be activated early in FY 2001 for piloting with a select set of SFs (and perhaps OFs). However, if the pilot is successful and the registry/repository becomes operational, additional funding will be required in FY 2002 and beyond to provide for ongoing maintenance; registration of additional forms, elements, and schemas; and scalability for additional usage.
How: GSA and NIST will make available on the Internet the programming logic that NIST already possesses to support the registry/repository. Forms managers at GSA will work with Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPRs) to register and make available in the repository the data elements and schemas used in SFs and OFs.
Why: SFs and OFs embody the need for interoperability and, thus, data standardization across agencies. The registry/repository will enable the next logical step to convert paper-based forms into intelligent, automated, customer-focused, standards-based and, thus, interoperable interfaces to information systems. In particular, the registry will help to identify and thereby enable decision-makers to reconcile needless inconsistencies and redundancies in the data elements, schemas, and actual instances of data gathered across different forms and offices. The CIO Council is responsible to the American taxpayers not only to reduce needless redundancies across Governmental information systems but also to ensure that inherently governmental data elements and schemas are effectively and efficiently identified, implemented, and used.
Milestone 2: Proceed to Operational Status
Start: October 1, 2001
Key Decision: Whether usage warrants continuation.
a. Registration of elements on all SFs & OFs – GSA & OPRs
b. Review of existing elements for opportunities to share data elements and instances – OPRs & data architects
Milestone 3: Information Collection Burden Reduction
Start: October 1, 2002
End: September 30, 2003
Key Decision: Whether to extend the registry to include all public-use forms, in addition to SFs and OFs used primarily within Government agencies.
a. Decision – OMB
b. Registration of elements and schemas – OPRs
c. Review of elements and schemas – OPRs & stakeholders
d. Reconciliation of needless inconsistencies and redundancies – OPRs, data architects, systems managers, GSA & OMB
a) is used to support the automation of all Government forms, including public-use forms as required by the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA); and
b) thereby helps to reduce the imposition of needless burdens upon the public.
 While we have indicated that the elements on the top 100 SFs and OFs will be registered in the pilot phase, we do not yet have a benchmark on which to judge how much work can be accomplished with existing resources. We will be better prepared to provide cost estimates following the pilot.
 Until we have had a chance to benchmark the costs during the pilot phase, there is little basis on which to justify this figure. Presumably, it will be more than enough to complete registration of all of the elements on all of the SFs and OFs. However, it may not provide much, if any resources to reconcile needless redundancies and inconsistencies. In the event that the pilot is successful, we anticipate working closely with the Architecture Working Group to share the costs and accomplish the required tasks.
 This figure should be considered descriptive in nature. It is based upon the cost budgeted to support a similar metadata registry/repository at the Environmental Protection Agency. The primary purpose for including it is to put the CIO Council on notice regarding the potential cost of successful implementation of the registry. At this point we have no economic analysis demonstrating that the benefits will exceed the costs, but logically speaking, there is no way that the cost of sharing data efficiently can exceed the cost of doing so inefficiently, through ill- or uncoordinated stovepipe systems.