Re: reflections on StratML

Nope, Paola, I don't see your point.  Life is not as simple and clear cut
> as "classy" single schema.
>

of course not, it was tongue in cheek a bit-

however. some things remain best improvised. (creative experiences etc) and
loosely planned
but  others are best planned - at least to some extent
for the planned ones. I think stratml can help!
the single schema is (in my world) a matter of good practice,
I only mention it as 'free advice' with no obligation :-)
PDM


> 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
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cut-chase-skip-nonsense-proceed-directly-doing-good-better-owen-ambur/
>
> 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.
>
> Owen
> 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> 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
>>
>>