W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aikr@w3.org > May 2020

Re: reflections on StratML

From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 22:42:55 -0400
To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com
Cc: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
Message-ID: <fadfbcb6-e2a6-d765-d65f-c1da81bdd66c@verizon.net>
Nope, Paola, I don't see your point.  Life is not as simple and clear 
cut as "classy" single schema.

Indeed, the fact that you (and probably most other people) prefer to 
improvise pretty much speaks for itself ... in very fuzzy, and dare I 
say pretty unproductive, terms.

At the very least, it reflects CMM Level 1 maturity 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model#Levels>.  While 
good things do occur at the lowest level of (im)maturity, that is only 
by chance or due to uncommonly heroic effort.

That's why I'm continually on the lookout for folks who DO know what 
they want to accomplish and may share common objectives with me.  See 

At my "mature" age I don't have time to waste with those who don't.

BTW, this is not to imply that StratML Part 2 may not someday become 
close to the "classy single schema" you seek, but that is unlikely to 
occur until the StratML Community of Practice (StratML CoP) passes 
through the StratML Part 1 level of maturity first.


On 5/2/2020 10:18 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> aargh
> Part 3?  had not heard of that yet
> I hope you see my point. nothing would prevent anyone from using a subset
> of it. but my advice as a systems and web service designer would be 
> definitely to resolve those
> differences into a classy single schema that can be personalized-
> I am actually not likely to use my personal plan very much. my goal is 
> to continue to improvise :-)
> but we created one as a test. and maybe one day when it all comes 
> together I ll look back and
> write up the plan retrospectively :-)   I always do that. (what were 
> we doing?...)
> However. the plan started by Carl  for this AI KR CG would be useful 
> as a collaboration and tracking tool
> so I ll work on that
> Thanks for the machine readability push
> P
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 9:56 AM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net 
> <mailto:Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>> wrote:
>     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
Received on Sunday, 3 May 2020 02:43:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 3 May 2020 02:43:16 UTC