XML Web Services: XML Schema Harmonization and Registry and Repository

1
XML Web Services XML Schema Harmonization and
Registry and Repository

• Brand Niemann
• XML Web Services Evangelist (My Internet
  Handle)
• US EPA Office of Environmental Information
• June 10, 2002

2
Overview

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Technical Resource Group Action
• 3. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
• 4. XML Registry and Repository Pilot
• 5. Contact Information

3
1. Introduction

• DTD to XML Schema Conversion
• See Unit 5. XML Web Services XML Asset
  Management Using XML Spy 4.2 and TIBCO
  Canon/Developer Portal.
• FDAT/FRS and EDMR XML Schema Harmonization
  Project
• Facility Data Action Team XML Schema
• State/EPA XML Format Specification Schema
  Representation (Version 1.0)
• http//epa.gov/enviro/html/frs_demo/state_xml_form
  at.html
• Electronic Discharge Monitoring Rule XML Schema
• XML Standards for Submitting Discharge Monitoring
  Reports (DMR), January 31, 2000 draft.
• http//xmlregistry.nist.gov/EPA-States
• Some lessons learned so far
• See next slide.

4
1. Introduction

• FDAT/FRS and EDMR XML Schema Harmonization
• Some lessons learned so far
• XML Schema need to be generic and then tailored
  to a specific Trading Partner Agreement (TPA).
• Some XML Schema components need to be modular to
  be reused (e.g. phone, fax, email).
• There are no formal guidelines for labeling and
  naming XML Schema.
• XML Schema elements need to indicate different
  versions over time (e.g. EdmrFacilityVersion1).

5
1. Introduction

• XML Programming, Microsoft Press, 2002, Appendix
  B. XML Software
• You will find XML Spy to be an easy-to-use, yet
  incredibly flexible and complete toolthe ability
  to visually edit your schemas or edit the XML
  source directlymakes it one of the most complete
  and inexpensive tools available today.
• XML Developer/Canon is one of, if not the, most
  comprehensive XML-repository servers we have
  seen. It provides all the versioning,
  differencing, and source management one would
  expect, as well as complete Web access, searching
  (e.g. finding reusable portions of schema and
  auto-documentation), and browsing that can be
  controlled at various levels of security.

6
1. Introduction
XML Spy use in Schema Harmonization
7
1. Introduction
Evaluation of Canon Developer Portal for
EPA-State Network
8
1. Introduction

• LMI Report Requirements for an XML Registry, May
  2001
• http//xml.gov/documents/completed/registryreport.
  pdf
• XML.Gov Working Group
• Registry/Repository Standards Integration
• http//xml.gov/minutes/20010815.htm
• http//xml.gov/documents/completed/lbnl/20020417st
  atus.htm
• Registry/Repository Team
• Business Analysis for Governmentwide
  Registry/Repository
• Booz Allen Hamilton development case development,
  June 6th first weekly conference call.

9
1. Introduction
10
1. Introduction
11
2. Technical Resource Group Action

• April 12, 2002
• (1) Purpose of the Schema
• The schema provides a set of core data elements
  that are common to the current DMR reporting
  needs by most state agencies. It is intended for
  state agency use as a national guideline when
  implementing an electronic DMR reporting system.
  The initial application shall be for DMR
  reporting from a permitted Facility to the state
  agencies. The following major NPDES reporting
  functions will be supported
• Monthly summary data required on the EPAs DMR
  report (EPA form 3320-1)
• Daily sample data
• Ground water sample data
• Dynamic limits
• Sludge quality data
• Treatment plant operational data

12
2. Technical Resource Group Action

• April 12, 2002
• (2) Readiness of the Schema
• (2.A) Products The schema consists of two major
  products (1) 47 module schema files (17 of them
  are e-DMR modules, and 30 of them are inherited
  from the FACID modules), and (2) a comprehensive
  Implementation Guide.
• (2.B) Compatibility Interoperability With
  strong support from the USEPA and States, the
  schema has incorporated many important
  considerations as follows.
• 1. Adhere to the XML Tag Name convention
  published by the TRG (1/2002)
• 2. Data elements are cross-referenced with EPAs
  Environmental Data Standards (EDS)
• 3. The schema has been harmonized with the
  Facility Data schema version 2 (Facility Data
  Action Team (FDAT))
• 4. The schema module file naming convention
  conforms to an interim file-naming standard
  endorsed by the e-DMR Schema Work Group, FDAT,
  and USEPA.
• (2.B) Status The schema has been endorsed by the
  e-DMR Schema Work Group, USEPA, ECOS, and FDAT
  and recommended for pilot testing. Using a
  W3-like rating, it is equivalent to a candidate
  recommendation status

13
2. Technical Resource Group Action
April 12, 2002 (3) Intended Users of the Schema
The following entities are potential users of the
schema
14
2. Technical Resource Group Action

• April 12, 2002
• (5) TRG Action Requested
• The e-DMR Schema Work Group recommend an
  endorsement from the TRG for publication of the
  e-DMR schema at interim registry and release for
  pilot testing. We recommend the schema status to
  be equivalent to a W3-like maturity level
  Candidate Recommendation.

15
3. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

• 3.1 W3C World Wide Web Consortium
  (http//www.w3c.org)
• Develops interoperable technologies
  (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools)
  to lead the Web to its full potential as a forum
  for information, commerce, communication, and
  collective understanding.
• 3.2 W3C Recommendation Track
• 3.3 W3C Technical Reports

16
3.2 W3C Recommendation Track

• The W3C "Recommendation track" is the process
  that W3C follows to build consensus around a Web
  technology, both within W3C and in the Web
  community as a whole. W3C turns a technical
  report into a Recommendation by following this
  process. The labels that describe increasing
  levels of maturity and consensus along the
  Recommendation track are
• Working Draft
• Last Call Working Draft
• Candidate Recommendation
• Proposed Recommendation
• W3C Recommendation

17
3.2 W3C Recommendation Track
18
3.2 W3C Recommendation Track

• Working Draft
• A technical report on the Recommendation track
  begins as a Working Draft. A Working Draft is a
  chartered work item of a Working Group and
  generally represents work in progress and a
  commitment by W3C to pursue work in a particular
  area. The label "Working Draft" does not imply
  that there is consensus within W3C about the
  technical report.
• Last Call Working Draft
• A Last Call Working Draft is a special instance
  of a Working Draft that is considered by the
  Working Group to fulfill the relevant
  requirements of its charter and any accompanying
  requirements documents. A Last Call Working Draft
  is a public technical report for which the
  Working Group seeks technical review from other
  W3C groups, W3C Members, and the public.

19
3.2 W3C Recommendation Track

• Candidate Recommendation
• A Candidate Recommendation is believed to meet
  the relevant requirements of the Working Group's
  charter and any accompanying requirements
  documents, and has been published in order to
  gather implementation experience and feedback.
  Advancement of a technical report to Candidate
  Recommendation is an explicit call for
  implementation experience to those outside of the
  related Working Groups or the W3C itself.
• Proposed Recommendation
• A Proposed Recommendation is believed to meet the
  relevant requirements of the Working Group's
  charter and any accompanying requirements
  documents, to represent sufficient implementation
  experience, and to adequately address
  dependencies from the W3C technical community and
  comments from previous reviewers. A Proposed
  Recommendation is a technical report that the
  Director has sent to the Advisory Committee for
  review.

20
3.2 W3C Recommendation Track

• W3C Recommendation
• A W3C Recommendation is a technical report that
  is the end result of extensive consensus-building
  inside and outside of W3C about a particular
  technology or policy. W3C considers that the
  ideas or technology specified by a Recommendation
  are appropriate for widespread deployment and
  promote W3C's mission.

21
3.3 W3C Technical Reports

• Notes
• A Note is a dated, public record of an idea,
  comment, or document. A Note does not represent
  commitment by W3C to pursue work related to the
  Note.
• Working Drafts
• A Working Draft represents work in progress and a
  commitment by W3C to pursue work in this area. A
  Working Draft does not imply consensus by a group
  or W3C.
• Candidate Recommendations
• A Candidate Recommendation is work that has
  received significant review from its immediate
  technical community. It is an explicit call to
  those outside of the related Working Groups or
  the W3C itself for implementation and technical
  feedback.
• Proposed Recommendations
• A Proposed Recommendation is work that (1)
  represents consensus within the group that
  produced it and (2) has been proposed by the
  Director to the Advisory Committee for review.
• Recommendations
• A Recommendation is work that represents
  consensus within W3C and has the Director's stamp
  of approval. W3C considers that the ideas or
  technology specified by a Recommendation are
  appropriate for widespread deployment and promote
  W3C's mission. .

22
4. XML Registry and Repository

• Concepts for pilot
• XML registry and repository should be an integral
  part of a distributed XML-based content network.
• Tools like XML Spy and Canon Developer Portal are
  needed to support content of an the XML registry
  and repository.
• Data dictionaries and data element harmonization
  results should also be included in the XML
  registry and repository
• Scope of the pilot
• XML Spy documentation (461 pages) and 97 files of
  general documentation (3), Schemas (47), and
  Schema documentation (47) totaling 12.6 MB.
• Used XML Spy to create documentation (Word) and
  used NXT 3 to create a registry and repository
  node on the Environmental Node of the FedGov
  Content Network.

23
4. XML Registry and Repository
24
4. XML Registry and Repository
25
5. Contact Information

• Brand Niemann, Ph.D.
• USEPA Headquarters, EPA West, Room 6143D
• Office of Environmental Information, MC 2822T
• 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
  20460
• 202-566-1657
• niemann.brand_at_epa.gov
• EPA http//161.80.70.167
• Outside EPA http//130.11.44.140