History, Charter & Challenges Facing the XML Community of Practice (xmlCoP) Owen Ambur, Co-Chair Emeritus xmlCoP/XBRL CoP March 20, 2007

Presentation Outline xmlCoP History Original Motivations 1 st Charter 2 nd Charter 3 rd Charter 4 th Charter Accomplishments Recent ET Submissions I411 & BTS Prototype Stage 2 CoPs Stage 3 CoPs Remaining Challenges XML Registry Services ET.gov Enhancements XSD for DRM XML NDRG XML for Forms & Records Contact Info 2

History Chartered by CIO Council in st Charter Expired on September 30, 2002 Now Operating under 4 th two-year Charter – Expiring November 30, 2008 New Co-Chairs: – Ed Coia, Treasury’s Financial Management Service – Kirk Keller, Missouri’s Department of Conservation 3

Original Motivations Render all.gov forms in XML & gather the data from them in XML Specify a core set of XML metatags for the classification & management of records governmentwide My message: 4

Originally Chartered Activities 1)Develop XML Best practices and Recommended Standards 2)Develop Partnerships with Key Industry and Public Groups Developing XML Standards and Specifications 3)Develop Partnerships with Existing Federal "Vertical" Communities to Accelerate the Delivery of XML Benefits 4)Conduct "Results-Oriented" Education and Outreach 5

Additional Activity in 2 nd Charter 5)Propose for consideration by the AIC specific projects and products benefiting stakeholders of multiple Federal agencies CIOC intended to take more “operational” role Subsequently found resources lacking Congress cut cross-agency funding – Including $2.1 million requested by the President for the XML Registry Business Case estimated ROI ranging from 500 – 1400% 6

Additions in 3 rd Charter Continue previously authorized activities while focusing on: a)Assisting with implementation of the emerging technology (ET) life-cycle management process b)Facilitating collaboration on and review of XML-based "components" within that process The XML Working Group (XML WG) was renamed as the XML Community of Practice (xmlCoP) 7

Addition in 4 th & Current Charter Continue previously chartered activities while: Coordinating with and supporting the activities of the Data Architecture Subcommittee (DAS) and Services Subcommittee, as well as the Governance Subcommittee of the AIC The CIOC/AIC Created the DAS to emphasize data architecture as a priority, and Renamed the Services S/C to focus on services already available for reuse 8

Accomplishments Education & Outreach – xml.gov site xml.gov – Meetings/briefings virtually every month for 6 years See Agendas, Minutes & PresentationsAgendasMinutesPresentations ET.gov Site/ProcessSite – About 80 components/specifications so far See search results screen & i411 & BTS prototypescreenprototype – 14 CoPs at Stage 2Stage 2 – 5 at Stage 3Stage 3 – 2 have “graduated” at Stage 4Stage 4 PDF-A & X3D included in the FEA TRM 9

Most Recent ET.gov Submissions 10

I411 Prototype 11

Stage 2 ET CoPs 12

Stage 3 CoPs 13

Remaining Challenges XML Registry Services Emerging Technology Process Enhancements XML Schema for Data Reference Model XML Naming & Design Rules & Guidelines Original Motivations: – XML schemas & data from all.gov forms – XML metatags for records management/sharing 14

XML Registry Services Collaborative development/use of XML schemas Still too hard to discover & reuse – Centralized registry has highest ROI – Distributed set of interoperating registries preferred – Posting XSDs on Web with appropriate metadata may be best alternative Build registries from the bottom-up – See Registries page on xml.gov siteRegistries page 15

ET.gov Site/Process Enhancements More effective & well-coordinated consideration of ET by.gov agencies – Dampen hype cycle – Accelerate maturation & adoption Enhancement of ET.gov site & process – See proposed enhancement requirementsenhancement requirements 16

XSD for DRM One of “Key Indicators” in CIO Council’s Strategic Plan is: – All of the e-Gov and Lines of Business (LoB) project management offices have fully documented data architectures in conformance with the XML schema for DRM 2.0 Problem: – XSD for DRM is merely in draft form – Not yet “authoritative” 17

XML NDRG Various groups specifying own XML naming & design rules (NDR) Not all make sense in all contexts Guidelines may be more appropriate than rules in some instances Difficult & complex to apply Tool support required – NIST & XML Schema Interoperability Work Group 18

XML for Forms & Records A couple hopeful signs: FIRM’s forum this morning – XBRL/XForms presentation at this meeting –

Contact Information My Address: – Web Sites: – – – This Presentation: – –