# Presentation: 658975

## Derived XML Registry Prototype

**Started as Exercise in Developing a Methodology for Automatically Populating an XML Registry...**
**Transformed to Journey of Discovery: **
**Differing Practices, Policies, Portals Make Automatic Registry Construction Infeasible Now. **
**Practical Requirements for XML Registry Being determined by Forces Driving Technological Progress:**
**Rate of Standards Adoption (CAP, Web Services Security, WSRP, etc.) **
**9/11, Social/Political/Economic Factors**

**Original Idea**

**Conclusion**

## Derived XML Registry Prototype Options - the What

**Starting with Conclusions: **
**Automated Harvesting of Existing Government Documents/Standards Preferred, but Advance Preparation Required. **
**Search, Crawl Standards Needed.**
**WSRP Adoption Encourages Reuse, Repurpose of Content & Standards Government-wide.**
**Establish Service-Oriented Architecture Components as **_**Policy Priority**_**.**
**Adapting to Portal Structures Required.**
**Use both UDDI and ebXML Registries to Accommodate Differing Business Cases.**

## Derived XML Registry Prototype Options - the Why

**Problem Review: **
**Proliferation of Narrowly-Focused Standards, Policies, Legislation, Registries, Portals, etc. **
**Adoption Uneven Across Federal Government Departments & Agencies.**
**Reaction **_**TO**_** vs. Setting Requirements **_**FOR**_** IT Standards****!!**

## Derived XML Registry Prototype Options - the Show

**Brief Notes on this Presentation: **
**Basics Bear Repeating for Maintaining Continuity & Keeping Related Issues of Legislation & Market Forces Grouped. **
**Slides of Screen Shots added as Examples of Specific Points.**
**Emphasis and New Additions Highlighted.**

## XML & XML-based StandardsOffer Solution, but No Panacea

**XML Salvages Legacy Databases, Applications, Crosses Platforms, but ...**
**XML Schema Standard is Complex.**
**Inconsistent Validation Remains.**
**Work-arounds for Toolsets cause Backward Compatibility Issues when Standards are Refined and Toolsets Improved. **
**Lack of Best Practices & Risks of Duplicate Terms in Vocabularies Possible. **
**Adoption Drives Better, Faster Improvement because...**
**Vendors, Standards Builders Respond to Market.**

## Needs Drive Rush for Domain-Specific Standards 

**Similar Concerns Breed Similar Standards.**
**Overlap & ‘Scope Creep’ Inevitable.**
**Specialization Standards Can be Separate from the Generalized Standards in the Same Domain, such as Optometry in Healthcare.**
**Key Terms can have many Standards, such as ‘Person.’**

## Government Cross Department, Cross Agency Effort Growing Faster Now

**Presidential Management Agenda for ‘Citizen-Centric Government’ Emphasizes Importance of E-Government, Continues Second Decade of IT Efficiency Effort.**
**Transition Underway from ‘Early Adoption’ to ‘Leadership’ in Open Standards Adoption Post Y2K.**

## Reminder: Legislation, Policy Mandates Continue...

**Government Performance & Results Act-1993.**
**Requires Strategic Plan with Periodic Reviews.**
**Requires ‘Outcome-Related’ Goals & Objectives.**
**Government Paperwork Reduction Act-1995.**
**Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB Reviews ALL Governmental Agency Information Collection (Note: These Reports are the largest number of 29 Total Items Returned from “Advanced Search of FirstGov.gov).**
**Requires ONLY Information Collection ‘Necessary for Proper & Practical Utility for Agency.’ **

## Interrelated Legislation, Policy Mandates Continue...

**Clinger-Cohen Act-1995.**
**Information Technology Management Reform Act Repeals 1949 Brooks Act Section 111-- GSA No Longer Responsible for Government-Wide Automated Data Processing Purchasing.**
**Requires Agencies to use Capital Planning & Investment Control Policies (GPIC).**
**Government Paperwork Elimination Act-1998.**
**Allows ‘Electronic Information Submission & Transmission’ in Government Agency Interactions.**
**Agencies Allowed Electronic Records Maintenance.**

## Interrelated Legislation, Policy Mandates Continue...

**Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)**
**Clinger-Cohen-Based FEA Framework Formed-1999-CIO Council (CIOC), Program Management Office (FEAPMO)-2002 under OMB, Returning to CIOC. **
**Zachman-Based, Promotes Interoperabilty, Sharing Common Federal Processes, Information.**
**Aids Capital Planning & Investment Control Policies (CPIC).**
**Common Federal Reference Models Provided-2002**
**Performance Reference Model (PRM)**
**Business Reference Model (BRM) **
**Service Component Reference Model (SRM)**
**Data Reference Model (DRM) ****(Note Changes)**
**Technical Reference Model (TRM)**

## FEAF Relies on Evolving Data Reference Model

**Recent Developments are Significant:**
**Core Data Types Focus Group Evolving into Two more Narrow Working Groups.**
**Emergency Data Exchange Language Distribution Element Paves Way for Use-Specific Messaging:**
**Emergency Content Types Lead .**
**Implications for Intergovernmental Communications and IT Operations Require Consideration.**
**Content-Based Messaging Provides Sensible Mechanism for Service-Oriented Architecture Components.**

## Interrelated Legislation, Policy Mandates Continue...

**OMB Circular A-11 Part 7 - 2002**
**Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition, and Management of Capital Assets for Reaching Strategic Results-Based Goals at Lowest Life-Cycle Cost and Least Risk.**
**Section 300 Requires:**
**CPIC & FEA-Based Documentation of Business Case Justification for IT Investments.**
**Performance Measurements. **
**Using FEA Reference Models in Relation to Specific Lines of Business (Implied. Not Explicit).**
**Identifying Cross-Agency Resources to Share.**

## Interrelated Legislation, Policy Mandates Continue...

**OMB Identified Lines of Business-2004**
**Lines of Business for CPIC & FEA-Based Reports**
**2004-2005**
**Financial Management.**
**Data & Statistics. **
**Human Resources.**
**Monetary Benefits.**
**Criminal Investigations.**
**Public Health Monitoring.**
**2006**
**Financial Management.**
**Human Resources Management.**
**Grants Management.**
**Federal Health Architecture.**
**Case Management.**

## Interrelated Legislation, Policy Mandates Continue...

**OMB Circular A-119**
**Federal Participation in the Development & Use of ****Voluntary Consensus Standards**** & in Conformity Assessment Activities.**
**National Technology Transfer & Advancement Act-1995:**
**NIST Coordinates Conformity Assessment.**
**OMB Revised Circular “Directing Agencies to use Voluntary Consensus Standards  in lieu of Government-Unique Standards Except Where Inconsistent with Law or Otherwise Impractical. **
**Purpose: Reduce to Minimum Government Reliance on Government-Unique Standards.**

## Legislation & Policy Results:

**Well-Intended, very Smart in some Specifics, Overly Specific in others.**
**Creates Confusion-What to do First?**
**Duplicated Provisions, Restated Objectives, Unstated Implications.**
**Specifies Process and Outcomes such as Sharing Resources among Agencies without Clear Priorities & Criteria.**
**Overall: Normal, Improving.**

## The Plan: XML Registry of Existing Standards & Specs

**Using Firstgov.gov: **
**Evaluate Methods to Automate or Assist in Populating an XML Registry of Governmentally-Used or -Related Documents, Standards.**
**Early Results Indicate that Crawling the FirstGov.gov Portal Raises Problem of Crawling a Search/Crawl-based Portal.**
**Secondary Crawls of Sites Searched by FirstGov.gov’s Search Engine Requires Human Time & Skill.**
**Basic Inefficiency Revealed.**

## The Plan: XML Registry

**Using Firstgov.gov: **
**Portals: Fact of Life: Use it for its Advantages.**
**Architecture is Registry-Ready!**

## The Plan: XML Registry Portal

**Using Portal Models: **
**Portals: Fact of Life: Make the Best of Good Deal.**
**For Scalability-Use Existing Models.**

## The Plan: XML Registry Portal

**Structure Portal to Serve Communities: **
**Communities Allow Structuring Resources by Agency, Department, ANY Community of Practice.**

## The Plan: XML Registry Portal

## The Plan: XML Registry Portal

**Using GovBenefits.gov: **
**Crawling a Site May Require Iterations over Different Criteria to Compare Results, Reach Conclusions.**

## The Plan: XML Registry One SIZE Fits NONE

**Using Firstgov.gov: **
**1- ****Evaluate Making the Registry Selectively Available using ebXML Registry and ****2-**** eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) to Restrict Access by Identity Authentication and Role-Based Permissions.**
**1-Developing Results Preempted by Apparent Requirement for Using Both UDDI and ebXML Registry/Repository Standards Based on Respective Shares of the Combined & Overlapping Public & Private Markets Served by Government.**

## The Plan: XML Registry One SIZE Fits NONE

**Unbiased Means for Differentiating Best Practices Between UDDI and ebXML Registry/Repository Needed.**
**1-Suggestion to both OASIS TCs: Meet to Differentiate Respective Scopes & Avoid Further Scope Creep Beyond Registry-Specific Functionalities. **

## The Plan: XML Registry Match the Registry to the Need

**Using Firstgov.gov: **
**1- ****Evaluate Making the Registry Selectively Available using ebXML Registry and ****2- ****eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) to Restrict Access by Identity Authentication and Role-Based Permissions.**
**2-For those Agencies & Programs Where ebXML Registry/Repository Favored, XACML Role-Based Permissions Usable.**
**Similar Available Security Measures Don’t Require ebXML Registry/Repository, Don’t Conflict with it, (Yet?).**

## The Plan: XML Registry Plan Now to Avoid “Lock-In”

**Using Firstgov.gov: **
**Evaluate the Extent of the Task of Using a Prototype Process to Develop a Centralized and Federated XML Standards Registry to Support the IT Investment Tasks of Governmental Agencies.**
**Early Results Indicate Task More Complex than Estimated.**
**Potential Confusion Greater, Therefore the Need is More Urgent to Stem Tide of Locked-In Solutions, Duplicated Efforts, “Standard” Incompatibility.**

## The Plan: XML Registry WSRP = Vendor/Platform Agnostic

**Using Firstgov.gov: **
**Method 1: WSRP Standard- Plumtree Web Crawler Portlet Makes Results Available by Web Browser in Humanmarkup.org Public Service Portal.**
**Method 1 Result: Not Feasible at this Stage Due to Unanticipated Human Time & Skill Required for Multiple Individual Secondary Crawls to Produce Concrete Results; However, WSRP Still Well-Grounded, Sound Choice for Distribution & Availability.**

## The Plan: XML Registry Need Search Standards Now

**Using Firstgov.gov: **
**Method 2: Use OWL to Search site by Ontological Rules to identify and sort .xml and .xsd files by Relationships to Criteria Keywords or Phrases, such as Healthcare Services or Emergency Event Types.**
**Further Research Reveals Lack of Search Standards May be Problem.**
**Recommend Effort to Develop Search Standard(s), Crawl Standards Allowing for Standard Metadata Capable of Sorting, Indexing According to OWL Description Logics. **

## The Plan: XML Registry Hypothesis Check:

**Using Firstgov.gov: **
**Method 3: Use Strawman Search Standard(s) to Discover Requirements for an XML-Specific Search Standard from this Registry Use-Case to be used in a Prototype Government XML Standards Registry.**
**Early Results Indicate OWL-Based Metadata Offer Best Path Toward Developing Prototype Government XML Standards Registry Providing Means to Create Use-Specific “Inventory” of Applicable or Appropriate Standards, Resources, etc. **

## The Plan: XML Registry Hypothesis Check:

**Early Results Indicate OWL-Based Metadata Possible with Planning and Sufficient Human Decision-Making.**

## The Plan: XML Registry Hypothesis Check:

**The Plan: XML Registry ****Hypothesis Check:**

## The Plan: XML Registry Hypothesis Revision

**Using Firstgov.gov: How many & which documents? **
**Are or Refer to XML? **
**Are or Refer to XSD?**
**Wrong Questions:**
**Firstgov.gov apparently uses a Crawler in its Search Engine to Find Resources Based on Specific Criteria so XML and/or XSD Results Spotty, Require Further Crawls.**
**Developing Government-wide Agreements on Best Practices and Standards is a Better Approach, but Continue Testing this Methodology to Document and Distribute Recommendations.**

## The Plan: XML Registry Hypothesis Revision

**Using Standards.gov: How many & which **_**Sites/Resources**_** Revealed by Search Contain the Documents Required?**
**Then Crawl Those Sites for Documents that:**** **
**Are or Refer to XML? **
**Are or Refer to XSD?**
**Identify, Sort, Index****.**
**XSDs that are Standards.**
**XSDs that are Agency- or Company-Specific.**
**Extract XSD Elements, Attributes, complexTypes, simpleTypes, etc.**
**Check for Duplicate Terms & Definitions-Compare and Contrast.**

## The Plan: XML Registry Hypothesis Revision

**Using GJXDM: Using Models that Make Sense**** **

## A Start Remains to be Made: Derived XML Registry

**What does Our Search Tell Us?**
**Apply Ontological Categorization**
**Make Ontology of Lines of Business.**
**Make Ontology of Cabinet Departments and their constituent Agencies.**
**Search by Ontological Criteria for Terms.**
**Identify Similar or Identical Terms.**
**Identify Number of Occurrences of Terms.**
**Identify Departments & Agencies using Specific Terms.**

## Derived XML Registry Conclusions Revisited

**Starting with Conclusions: **
**Automated Harvesting of Existing Government Documents/Standards Preferred, but Advance Preparation Required. **
**Search, Crawl Standards Needed.**
**WSRP Adoption Encourages Reuse, Repurpose of Content & Standards Government-wide.**
**Establish Service-Oriented Architecture Components as **_**Policy Priority**_**.**
**Adapting to Portal Structures Required.**
**Use both UDDI and ebXML Registries to Accommodate Differing Business Cases.**