Federal CIO Council XML Working Group
Meeting
Minutes
October 18,
2000
General
Services Administration
Room 1108
Co-chairs
Owen Ambur and Marion Royal convened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. at the General
Services Administration. Mr. Ambur
introduced new attendees. The chairs
asked for any comments on/corrections to the September 20 meeting minutes. None were forwarded and the minutes were
approved.
1.
Lisa
Carnahan (NIST) has created a prototype of xml.gov. All WG members are invited to comment upon the site’s design,
content, and structure. A site logo
contest is under consideration.
2.
Owen
Ambur announced that The United Kingdom has recently made a substantial
commitment to the government-wide use of XML.
Any additional information on the UK’s initiative would be appreciated.
3.
Mark
Crawford (LMI) provided members with a copy of the resolutions passed at the
most recent ANSI ASC X12 committee’s trimester meeting. Notable items include the committee’s
decision to develop accredited, cross industry XML Business Standards, to
petition ANSI for official recognition as an accredited XML Business Standards
body, and to develop these standards in partnership with the UN/CEFACT EDIFACT
Working Group. Mr. Crawford also
provided several articles announcing the UN/EDIFACT and ASC X12 joint venture.
4.
Mr.
Crawford also provided the WG with a W3C update. The working drafts for XML Schema parts 1, 2, and 0 and the DOM
Level 2 Proposed Recommendation were published in September (comments for the
latter end October 25). The second
edition of XML 1.0 and the XML Signature Syntax and Processing Last Call were
published in early October.
5.
OASIS
has expanded its technical process for the development of industrial XML
standards. Mr. Crawford provided the
press release.
6.
RosettaNet
has formed a semiconductor manufacturing board as part of an initiative to
expand e-commerce standards. Mr.
Crawford provided the press release.
Zach
Coffin, Sergio De la Fe, and Chris Moyer of the XBRL Consortium presented the
eXtensible Business Reporting Language to the WG.
Chris
Moyer provided the WG with an introduction to XBRL and the XBRL
Consortium. XBRL is an AICPA sponsored
open specification for financial reporting information designed to provide
transparency and usability of all financial data everywhere. The mission of the XBRL Consortium is to
“enhance the availability and cost effectiveness of global business reporting.” The first taxonomy published was XBRL 1.0 for
Commercial/Industrial Financial Reporting in July 2000. Release 1.0 for Federal Government
Financial Reporting will be available for comment in December 2000, with final
version scheduled for February 2001 publication.
XBRL
is applicable to every organization in every country and is the only standard
of its kind in existence. Currently,
most XML applications deal with transactions while XBRL is focused on business
reporting. Over 70 companies and many
XML standards groups are members of the Consortium. DFAS has recently become the first government agency to
join. XBRL will also begin work with
the FDIC.
The
XBRL taxonomy for the federal government will be based on the US Standard
General Ledger. This will encompass the
general business rules government-wide, which can then be customized to fit
each agency’s particular requirements (e.g. DFAS must report military
retirement statements). XBRL will be
used for both intra- and inter-agency financial reporting. It can facilitate aggregation and exchange
of financial statements.
Mr.
Ambur asked if the SEC has worked with the XBRL Consortium. Mr. Coffin replied that the two have been
talking, but their efforts are currently a “work in progress.”
Sergio
De la Fe briefed the WG on the features and benefits of XBRL. As XBRL provides a common data format for
software applications, it will eliminate errors that arise when the same date
must be entered and re-entered into multiple programs. This improves the efficiency and quality of
financial data reporting. With XBRL, a
certain set of data needs to be entered only once for multiple uses.
XBRL
is developing rapidly. In addition to
work on the federal taxonomy, the Consortium has begun developing
internationally. Currently, the
International Accounting Board is considering use of XBRL as an international
standard.
Mr.
De la Fe also presented a diagram of XBRL’s use in the government financial
information supply chain and, for comparison purposes, its use in the
commercial financial information supply chain.
Mr. Ambur observed that certain commercial areas, such as the use of
XBRL for EDGAR and tax filings commercial organizations prepare are analogous
to the annual performance plans and measures federal agencies must
prepare. He noted that XBRL could be
used to produce real-time reports rather than annual ones. Mr. De la Fe replied these observations are
the kind of input the XBRL Consortium wants to solicit from the WG.
Mr.
Ambur commented that the WG would like to establish a registry at xml.gov where
agencies could identify their own data elements and see if they correspond to
any used by another agency to avoid overlap.
Also, while the WG would like to use commercial data elements to the
greatest extent possible, there are certain ones that are unique to the
government. The registry would help
identify them.
Zach
Coffin restated the benefits of XBRL (facilitates the aggregation and reporting
of financial data, provides interoperability between systems and applications,
is uniquely focused on business processes, etc…) and pointed out that XBRL
enhances e-commerce by adding a standard reporting function to financial
activities. As a result, the private
sector is beginning to adopt a practice of continuous auditing. The government may want to consider doing so
as well.
When
asked what method the Consortium would use to implement XBRL in the government,
Mr. Coffin replied that the Consortium believes there are two major areas where
XBRL could be implemented. The first is
the financial reporting both within an agency and to higher government
authorities. This area would require a
top-down implementation strategy headed by the CIOs. The second encompasses the unique interactions each agency has
with related areas of the private sector.
This area would require input from agency specialists and need not begin
at the highest levels. Additionally,
the Consortium would like to have CFO and CIO representation in its
membership. Optimally, each agency
would select one technical specialist and one financial specialist to work with
the Consortium.
Mr.
Crawford observed that FESMCC is already working with standards committees to
ensure the unique needs of federal agencies are addressed in standards
development. Additionally, FESMCC is
used to coming to a consensus and speaking as one voice for the
government. It could serve as the
government’s representative to the XBRL Consortium.
Mr.
Ambur asked if the Consortium has had any contact with the CFO Council. Mr. Moyer replied that the Consortium has
been in contact with the executive director of FinanceNet, but has not yet
given any formal presentations to the CFO Council. Mr. Ambur stated that he
would convey the message through the CIO Council's interoperability committee
that the
CFOs
should be engaged in partnering with the XBRL Consortium.
Mr.
Crawford noted that EWG and X12 are beginning to build financial objects. This may be an opportunity for XBRL to
partner with them.
Mr.
Ambur suggested that the xml.gov site could facilitate collaboration between
agencies by making implementation information available electronically. This would reduce the cost of participation
in the Consortium, as employees would not have to travel to conferences.
Mr.
Coffin said that the Consortium would like to establish a formal liaison with
the XML WG.
The
WG then broke for ten minutes.
The
meeting re-convened at 11:00 a.m. for a strategy discussion led by Mark
Crawford.
John
Hood (SBA) asked how the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act were
being addressed in standards development, if at all. Marion Royal replied the GSA is currently working on these
issues. He added that XML data can be
presented in multiple formats and that clients can use applications that take
advantage of these formats. Mr.
Crawford noted that work is going on to use XML tags to drive data feedback to
present Braille to blind users.
Additionally, multimedia presentations can assist disabled users.
Mr.
Hood asked how the presentation of websites could be adapted for disabled
persons. For example, the commonly used
“Click here” link has no meaning for a blind web surfer. W3C is creating working groups to address
these issues.
Mr.
Royal pointed out that multiple presentation formats would be useful not only
for the disabled, but also for all users (e.g. “voice-only” presentation for
people driving their cars).
Brand
Niemann (EPA) noted that the GSA’s Center for IT Accommodation is also working
on implementing the Federal IT Accessibility Initiative (Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act, which requires access to the Federal government's
electronic and information technology).
WG members can learn more about the CITA’s work as well as tools to make
websites accessible at the CITA’s website, http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov/cita/index.htm.
Mr.
Ambur welcomed the representatives from the Small Business Administration and
briefed them on the previous meeting.
Mr.
Crawford then convened the Strategy Discussion. Following the WG’s October meeting, he and the WG co-chairs met
to discuss the WG’s progress. They
agreed that the WG ought to have an open ended discussion on the WG’s
responsibilities and elicit feedback on the WG’s charter issues. The XML Work Group Charter lists the group’s
four major responsibilities: to develop XML best practices and recommendation
of standards, to develop partnerships with key industry and public groups
developing XML standards and specifications, to develop partnerships with
existing federal “vertical” communities to accelerate the delivery of XML
benefits, and to conduct “results-oriented” education and outreach.
Develop XML best practices
and recommend standards: This involves developing guidelines for XML implementation and
use. Mr. Royal saw two methods for the
WG to propose policy or recommend standards and practices once the CIO council
has endorsed them. The first would be
to distribute the recommendations to agency heads. The second would be to forward the recommendations to OMB for
incorporation into operating policy.
Mr. Ambur felt that since it takes a long time to adopt policies, and
since most people are attracted to “best practices,” the WG should consider
issuing the best practices to the agencies as guidelines. This would encourage their adoption while
limiting the number of policies involved with XML implementation. Mr. Ambur felt that the WG ought to be
selective in deciding what it wants made policy.
There
was a concern that it would be hard to ensure compliance with the WG’s
recommendations without them having the stamp of “policy” on them. Mr. Royal suggested that, with regards to
standards, the WG could compile a list of common data elements that it could
urge OMB to publish as a standard.
Mr.
Niemann pointed out that the EPA received an executive order to avoid
duplication of data elements. Perhaps
an executive order would be the tool needed to establish a standard.
Mr.
Crawford noted that the United Kingdom has put together a government policy
that could serve as a model for discussion of whether to create policy or issue
best practices. He suggested that the
government could have the following policy: agencies must either use the same
standard or must adhere to the business standards developed by one body. Currently, agencies are striking out in
their own directions. The DoD is
developing XML policy focused on warfighter architecture rather than business
practices. This work should be
transferred to the CIO or JECPO. The
EPA is beginning to develop its own policy.
Mr. Crawford suggested that members from each agency’s policy committee
should meet to develop one uniform policy/standard/business practice
guidelines.
Mr.
Niemann pointed out that the EPA began with two subcommittees, one focused on
technology and one focused on policy.
They shortly found that the tech group began outlining policy and the
policy group began discussing technical aspects. As a result, the two subcommittees decided to rejoin. This experience shows that there is a need
for some sort of policy before implementation can begin in order to avoid
chaos.
Mr.
Crawford observed that the government has already started down the path of
implementation sans guiding policy.
There are different sections of agencies working on developing solutions
to the same problem. The goal of the WG
is to encourage interoperability and avoid having each agency develop its own
unique solution to business problems.
At
this point, Mr. Ambur observed that there appeared to be a consensus that there
was a need for at least some level of policy.
Carol
Blackston (DOE) stressed the need to get the word out about the WG and its work
to develop standards so agencies would be informed.
Roy
Morgan (NIST) commented that publishing a FIPS might be the best way to
implement standards across the government.
In his opinion, the FIPS process is very similar to the one being
discussed. Mr. Royal replied that the
WG must be very careful not to appear as if it is creating a federal
standard. Mr. Crawford observed that
FIPS 161-2 established support for commercial standards.
Tom
McCullough (SI International) suggested using agency data administrators to
define the data elements that would need to be part of a government
standard. The biggest challenge facing
data administrators is often to find common data elements within their own
agencies. Mr. Ambur asked the WG how it
could help data administrators accomplish this task efficiently. Mr. Crawford stated that data element
definition is but one aspect of XML implementation.
Mr.
Niemann voiced a concern that conventional federal IT policy is too slow. He cited the EPA as an example. While it believes that it has a state of the
art environmental data registry, its senior management has realized that it is
not keeping place with XML development.
To deal with this, he suggested that the WG develop a pre-implementation
policy that will deal with semantics and core data elements.
Mr.
Crawford summarized the discussion by stating that there was an agreement on
the need of some level of policy
combined with best practice guidelines.
The issue was earmarked for further discussion in the future.
Registries and Repositories: Mr. Crawford asked the WG
if there was a need for a registry or repository. Mr. Royal felt that there was, and that the WG should look to
NIST to help develop one.
Mr.
Morgan cautioned that the development of a repository is a big step and that
the WG must first define its functions and features before it begins
construction. He also pointed out that
the entire repository need not reside in one place. It could reside in several different locations. Mr. Crawford stated that XML allows for such
separation.
Mr.
Royal commented that he initially was opposed to the idea of a federal-level
registry, but has decided that one will probably be necessary. He recommended that the WG observe how
commercial organizations have developed registries, then establish a
registration process that it could point federal agencies to. Lisa Carnahan is currently working on
registries for Oasis and W3C. The WG
could take advantage of her expertise.
Mr.
Ambur suggested that the WG focus on information collection that the government
is already doing and take advantage of a pre-existing data collections process.
Mr.
Niemann observed that the repository could be used as a clearinghouse which
agencies could visit to get an idea of one another’s data elements and
initiatives to identify commonalties.
This would facilitate inter-agency cooperation and coordination.
Mr.
Royal believes that the WG should not wait on the establishment of a FIPS. Instead, it should research what agencies
are doing with XML and provide the CIO Council with the recommendation that
agencies register their XML initiatives on the WG registry.
Terry
Gower (DLA) asked what the cost of creating a registry would be. Mr. Crawford estimated approximately $1-2
million to establish, and approximately $1 million annually to maintain. Mr. Niemann said that the EPA’s costs
roughly $3 million per year. The WG’s
registry would require at least 2 full time employees to maintain it.
Mr.
Ambur wondered what the cost of not
establishing a registry would be. Mr.
Crawford recommended that the WG conduct a survey of private industry’s
registry work.
Design Guidelines: Mr. Crawford asked the WG
if it wanted to wait and see what the commercial sector came up with in the way
of business standards. Mr. Gower
observed that the complexity of sending transactions between the DoD and the
military services illustrates the need for interoperability.
Mr.
Crawford observed that there are few guidelines in existence. X12/EWG have just begun to define its
own. It would be best to continue to
survey what is going on in other organizations and determine any impact on
accessibility and interoperability. Mr.
Ambur remarked that if the development of guidelines is tied closely to issues
of accessibility, the WG could receive funding for the effort.
Best Practices: Mr. Royal commented that
the roadmap will address some issues pertaining to best practices. The roadmap should be complete in another
month. Mr. Gower informed the group
that within the next couple of months JECPO and the DLA should complete a DoD
roadmap for the use of EDI.
Mr.
Crawford asked if the GSA has finished its data call for its database of
eBusiness initiatives. None of the WG
members present knew if it had or not.
Mr. Crawford suggested that the WG resume its best practice discussion
upon completion of the road map.
Technical Standards: The original recommendation
for technical standards was to coalesce government unique requirements and take
them to a technical standards committee.
Currently, there is no movement within the CIO Council to do this.
Mr.
Royal commented that the WG must know what FESMCC is going to do with regards
to technical standards so the two bodies could work together and not duplicate
one another’s work. Mr. Crawford
observed that FESMCC’s focus is business standards, but Mr. Royal argued that
it could hardly ignore technical standards in its work. Mr. Royal also wondered where the WG could
find technical experts to work on these requirements. Mr. Niemann suggested using the Digital Government Consortium as
a source of expertise.
There
was a consensus that the WG should talk to FESMCC, Digital Government
Consortium, and the CIO EIEIT about technical and business standards.
Remaining
issues were shelved for future discussion.
Mr.
Ambur suggested that the WG develop project teams with specific tasks.
Mr.
Royal hoped that the listserv could serve as a discussion forum, especially for
those members unable to attend the meetings.
All
handouts will be available electronically.
E-mail marion.royal@gsa.gov.
Next Meeting: November 15.
To join the Federal XML Working Group Mail List, send an email
message to:
LISTSERV@WWW.GSA.GOV with the
following text line in the body of the message
SUBSCRIBE XMLWG <Firstname>
<Lastname> using your own first and last name.
Archives of messages and documents may be
found at:
http://www.gsa.gov/archives/xmlwg.html
XML Working
Group Attendance List
|
Owen
Ambur |
DOI-FWS |
|
Ann
Andress |
Federal
Reserve |
|
Michael
Bailey |
XML
Solutions |
|
Carol
Blackston |
DOE |
|
Tim
Boland |
NIST |
|
Timothy
Brice |
XML
Solutions |
|
Mark
Crawford |
LMI |
|
Zach
Coffin |
XBRL
Consortium |
|
Sergio
De la Fe |
XBRL
Consortium |
|
Kathy
Flitter |
USN |
|
Alice
Gannon |
OFHEO |
|
Diane
Gannon |
SBA |
|
Terry
Gower |
DLA |
|
Laura
Green |
LMI |
|
Jeff
Greger |
DLA |
|
Dave
Hagler |
XML
Solutions |
|
John
Hood |
SBA |
|
Rosemary
Ludt |
DLA |
|
Thomas
McCullough |
SI
International |
|
Bill
Morgan |
GSA-ME |
|
Roy
Morgan |
NIST |
|
Chris
Moyer |
XBRL
Consortium |
|
Brand
Niemann |
EPA |
|
Marion
Royal |
GSA |
|
Felise
Shellenberger |
ED |
|
Mike
Sinisgalli |
XML
Solutions |
|
Jason
Sutback |
Sequoia
Software |
|
Pete
Zairis |
Information
Services |