Monday, March 28, 2005
Trusted Logic Voting and OASIS EML 4.0
Have finished my first overview analysis of EML 4.0, the EU CoE process requirements and trusted logic.
This all appears to fit together very well. I have produced a draft PPT overview (and PDF) here: http://drrw.net/backup/Trusted-Logic-Voting-Systems-with-EML40.pdf
I've tried to keep this at a reasonable level of understanding - keeping above the XML-level / UML activity diagram view of things for now.
I'm seeing this can provide a formal basis for supporting VVPAT and how vendors should be implementing voting - backed up by rigorous international process requirements - rather than the flimsy ad hoc approach of today.
The EU CoE requirements are particularly comprehensive - as noted before - and the OASIS EML work supports adherence to those.
Being able to inform legislators that there is a clear and minimum set of voting process requirements they should be insisting on I believe will dramatically improve the state of voting systems from today's vendor anarchy.
More importantly - moving to a point where we can have confidence in the reliability of voting systems is essential in order to maintain high levels of democracy worldwide.
There is still much technical work to be done, but the foundations appear to be coming into focus.
Enjoy, DW
This all appears to fit together very well. I have produced a draft PPT overview (and PDF) here: http://drrw.net/backup/Trusted-Logic-Voting-Systems-with-EML40.pdf
I've tried to keep this at a reasonable level of understanding - keeping above the XML-level / UML activity diagram view of things for now.
I'm seeing this can provide a formal basis for supporting VVPAT and how vendors should be implementing voting - backed up by rigorous international process requirements - rather than the flimsy ad hoc approach of today.
The EU CoE requirements are particularly comprehensive - as noted before - and the OASIS EML work supports adherence to those.
Being able to inform legislators that there is a clear and minimum set of voting process requirements they should be insisting on I believe will dramatically improve the state of voting systems from today's vendor anarchy.
More importantly - moving to a point where we can have confidence in the reliability of voting systems is essential in order to maintain high levels of democracy worldwide.
There is still much technical work to be done, but the foundations appear to be coming into focus.
Enjoy, DW
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
What price software?
This article details a change I have been seeing for some time already.
http://www.intelligententerprise.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60404498
I've been arguing this has been with us for a while - even at the height of
the .COM boom.
Customers appreciate the open source approach and paying for service and value - the RedHat model.
And this is the real driver behind the battles around IPR and licensing between the traditional major corporation vendors and the open source and open public specification communities.
The traditional vendors are trying to minimize customers options - and preserve the old selling models as the only viable option. They need to change, or whither and fail in the after shock from the .COM meltdown.
People are not being fooled.
DW
http://www.intelligententerprise.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60404498
I've been arguing this has been with us for a while - even at the height of
the .COM boom.
Customers appreciate the open source approach and paying for service and value - the RedHat model.
And this is the real driver behind the battles around IPR and licensing between the traditional major corporation vendors and the open source and open public specification communities.
The traditional vendors are trying to minimize customers options - and preserve the old selling models as the only viable option. They need to change, or whither and fail in the after shock from the .COM meltdown.
People are not being fooled.
DW
