RE: [election-services] Ballot counting - bridging between EML 410 and EML 230

Paul,

 

OK - there's two scanner models here - your approach works great for
the second one where the scanner outputs to EML 460 - in the other case
- the scanner has its own ugly XML that it emits - and so you need a
pre-process to create the 440 / 460 records.  So that's when the
swap out of the coding system occurs - because you need the EML to have
one consistent set of code values independent of the actual form layouts
scanned.

 

So I guess the answer to the question is that we are both
correct!  Just depends on your own local processing needs.

 

Thanks for helping further clarify this all - this is good stuff.

 

DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE:
[election-services] Ballot counting - bridging between EML
410 and
EML 230
From: "Paul Spencer"
<>
Date: Wed, July 19, 2006 6:54
am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <>
Cc: "eml"
<>

David,

 

If I have the process right, I think we need a slight
change.

 

The scanner produces a 460, which is a collection of votes.
These can use the ShortCode and include a ballot identifier for each
cast ballot. I think the next step is what you call the tabulator -
something that totals the votes for each candidate. It is at this stage
that we need something that, for each ballot identifier, associates the
candidate with the ShortCode. This means that the ShortCode must be
associated with a BallotIdentifier in the 230. TheDisplayOrder and
ExpectedConfirmationReference could also potentially depend on the
BallotIdentifier.

 

Do I have this right?

 

Regards

 

Paul

 

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber (XML)
[mailto:]
Sent: 18 July 2006
19:41
To: Paul Spencer
Cc: eml
Subject:
RE: [election-services] Ballot counting - bridging between EML 410 and
EML 230

Paul,

 

Just digging into the details here actually I think the EML 510
should be totalled on ID not ShortCode most likely.

 

As Peter noted - you will need to associate between the raw codes
coming off the optical scanner and the EML 440 records you are creating
already at a prior step.  This needs to take into account form
varients etc.  So its logical to look the ShortCode to ID values
up at that point.  I think Peter was hinting too you may need more
than one EML 230 for each form varient the scanner produces.

 

So when you get to the EML 510 totalling process - you are using ID
values that are consitent with the overall master EML 230 at that point
- even though you are - at the scanning step - using a
sparse EML 230 as you have below that does not expose candidate
information.

 

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE:
[election-services] Ballot counting - bridging between EML
410 and
EML 230
From: "Paul Spencer"
<>
Date: Tue, July 18, 2006 10:10
am
To: "David Webber" <>
Cc: "eml"
<>

David,

I
think the ShortCode attribute of the candidate could be good for this.
The
ShortCode was intended for uses such as SMS voting, where the
candidates are
listed in order and the voter votes for number 1,
number 2 etc. If we are
talking about the counting engine working in
field order, this seems to be a
similar requirement.

The 510
could then use the ShortCode as the only identifier for
the
candidate, the code just representing the order on the ballot.
Meanwhile, a
version of the 230 could be used providing just the Id
and ShortCode
attributes for each candidate.

A section of the
510 would then look
like:

<TotalVotes>
<Selection>
<CandidateIdentifier
ShortCode="01"/>
<ValidVotes>1234</ValidVotes>
</Selection>
<Selection>
<CandidateIdentifier
ShortCode="02"/>
<ValidVotes>2345</ValidVotes>
</Selection>
<Selection>
<CandidateIdentifier
ShortCode="03"/>
<ValidVotes>4321</ValidVotes>
</Selection>
</TotalVotes>

Meanwhile,
a portion of the 230 would
be:

<Contest>
<ContestIdentifier
Id="12"/>
<Candidate>
<CandidateIdentifier Id="ABC"
ShortCode="01"/>
</Candidate>
<Candidate>
<CandidateIdentifier
Id="BCD"
ShortCode="02"/>
</Candidate>
<Candidate>
<CandidateIdentifier
Id="CDE"
ShortCode="03"/>
</Candidate>
</Contest>

I
assume that this 230 would be used by the counting engine. Would this
meet
this need? Does rotation have an impact?

By the way, I
did not get your email directly. Perhaps this is related to
the new
OASIS mailing system. I have not yet had the re-registration
email.
It is possible others did not see it
either.

Regards

Paul

----- Forwarded Message
----
From: David RR Webber (XML) <>
To:
Election EML <>
Sent:
Monday, 17 July, 2006 3:14:42 AM
Subject: [election-services] Ballot
counting - bridging between EML 410 and
EML
230

Team,

I'm working on an anonymous counting
mechanism for use with paper scanned
ballots particularly - but the
same could also apply to DRE votes too.

When the ballot comes
off the scanner - the scanner is just plucking fields
and columns
and X's - so it has no idea of candidates / ballots et al.

That
is a good thing.

So it merely dumps data as <fieldID="XXX"
value="1"/> where XXX is the
sequential # of the field it
scanned.

Now I want to align fieldID=023 with candidate 007 -
etc, but I want to do
this anonymously - like putting beans in tins
- so the counting mechanism
has no idea which tin is
what.

Unfortunately EML 230 exposes the candidate affliation,
description, etc.

What I need is a bridging EML that maps
between the actual ballot layout -
EML 410 and the list of voting
candidates / options - anonymously - (that
will create EML 440's
then from this and the scanner output).

I can of course go ahead
and create some XML for this purpose - fieldID =
candidateID and that
is all that is in that EML - excepting header
information on the
event etc for matching purposes.

I'm just wondering if I'm
missing something that exists already?

If not - should we add
this to EML 5.0 requirements?

The goal is to create a general
purpose counting system that can total EML
ballots given the EML
control XML's - EML 110 - and this other EML XML - and
then this
runs thru and does all the totals by anonymous ID value.

A final
step then separately and independently uses the final counts, and
the
EML 230 to figure out who got what votes.

Thanks,
DW

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all
your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php