Re: reflections on StratML

Paola, thanks for sharing these thoughts.  I'm very glad to hear that 
you intend to draft a plan in StratML format.  As one who has converted 
thousands of plans and about us statements to StratML format, I 
encourage you to start with Part 1.

However, if you use Chris' app, it doesn't matter because it can output 
data in either Part 1 or Part 2 format.  Moreover, if you were to use, 
my (actually Joe Carmel's) XForm for Part 1 
<https://stratml.us/forms/Part1Form.xml>, the file can easily be 
imported into Alain Barbet's XForm for Part 2 
<http://waterland.freeboxos.fr:8009/Part2Form.xml>.  When I create Part 
2 files (which is far less often) that's generally what I do, i.e., 
create a Part 1 file first.

There is no way that I personally am going to give up Part 1 and be 
forced to contend with the additional elements in Part 2 when I do not 
wish to do so.

If others want to focus solely on Part 2, great.  I look forward to 
seeing as many performance plans and reports as they are willing and 
able to produce.  I'd be delighted to see bunches of them ... but based 
upon experience over the past many years, I don't anticipate that 
happening in the near future.  Providing the additional information 
required for performance plans and reports requires a fair amount of 
work, and until we can demonstrate the benefits, it's unlikely many 
people will be willing to so so. Thus far, I believe I'm the only one.

If and, hopefully, when we are able to get StratML back on the ANSI/ISO 
standards track, potential enhancements to Part 2 will be in order and 
the output of the StratML Committee will depend upon the consensus of 
the participants.  I hope you will be among them.

BTW, StratML Part 3 <https://stratml.us/#Part3> was specified to address 
data requirements implicit in the GPRA Modernization Act 
<https://stratml.us/references/PL111-532StratML.htm> (GPRAMA), albeit in 
a manner generic enough to apply to all organizations worldwide and not 
just U.S. federal agencies covered by the law.  If only one schema could 
be used, a case could be made that it should be the Part 3 schema ... 
but that most likely would mean that it wouldn't be used at all, because 
it entails far more complexity than anyone wants to take on at once -- 
including U.S. federal agencies, who have been directed by law to do so.

Again, I encourage one and all to start with Part 1, but in any event, I 
look forward to seeing your plan, in whatever format you may choose to 
share it.

Owen

On 5/2/2020 9:00 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> Owen
>
> after trying out the stratnav application in a demo last week, , I 
> look forward to be working on the stratml plan for this CG
> in the app
>
> My personal opinion as a software/systems engineer. is that the 
> distinction between stratML 1 and 2
> is not good. It makes the schema a bit brittle, easily breakable and 
> awkward to get ones head and parser around.
>
> The first thing I would do if I had to use it as a standard would be 
> to have a single
> schema.
>
> Some of the elements may be mandatory, like hearders and some elements 
> may be optional (so that the user
> always have to insert the mandatory elements but can select which 
> optional elements they need in their
> instance). This would enhance its robustness and usability
>
> The tool itself may benefit from some tweaking as discussed in offilst 
> email
>
> It is only after we see the output of the parser that the schema can 
> be fully evaluated and only then we ll know
> if stratml may need additional iterations to be optimized/make it smooth
>
> Thought I would throw my two cents in case you decide to develop it 
> further. I think it could be very useful but it
> may need to evolve a bit to fit the use cases
>
> Ill get my hands on the plan as soon as I can. this month I hope
> Hope veryone stays safe
> PDM