Re: Project Boundaries

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 05:05:07 CDT

At 9:16 PM -0700 5/11/04, Ed Kennedy wrote:
> Where are the boundaries of the EVM system, especially the Mark
>I? The current discussion about flat versus more sophisticated data
>bases brings home to me the importance of where to draw the system
>boundaries. If the boundaries occur where the ballots, the report,
>the cd's, the thumb drive, etc. are placed in the ballot box, the
>box is sealed and the whole thing handed to the election judges,
>then the flat data base is probably indicated. If the boundaries
>extend to the other extreme, all the way to the certification of
>election results by the registrar of voters then we've got the need
>for a much more sophisticated data base and a much more massive
>project. I don't think we want to re-engineer what we are referring
>to as, "Election Central," but the issue does need to be worked
>through.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "election central," but UCSC
intends to build a reference implementation of the canvassing system
as well. I believe the consensus *has* been worked out.

1. At polling place, no DBMS. Flat files using defined schemas to
represent a "database" of sorts, though.
2. At county elections HQ, DBMS with standardized schema compatible
with flat files at polling places.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:37 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT