Common Data Format (CDF) Update

1
Common Data Format (CDF) Update

• John P. Wack
• National Institute of Standards and Technology
• http//vote.nist.gov

2
Outline

• What is a CDF? Why have one?
• Whats in the VVSGs?
• Charge from EAC
• Current plans

3
Electronic Election Data

• Includes
• Voter registration data base (VRDB) information
• Ballot definition and presentation
• Voted ballot information
• Tabulated election results
• Election management system (EMS) information
• System logs, audit data
• Much of it in proprietary, disparate formats

4
Common Data Format (CDF)

• An Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based format
  designed around the needs of elections
• Could be used as input into voting systems, e.g.,
  from a VRDB that outputs in a CDF
• Could be used between devices, e.g., scanner
  could write data in a CDF to be read by an EMS
• Obviously, all must use the exact same CDF

5
Potential Benefits of a CDF

• Voting devices from different manufacturers could
  interoperate
• An interoperable CDF could help automate testing,
  better constrain testing costs
• Could expand certification model to devices as
  opposed to entire system

6
Potential Benefits of a CDF

• Could provide more transparency and audit
  capability to device operations
• Election jurisdictions could share data more
  easily with other DBs, applications
• Could help bring potential manufacturers of
  specialty devices into the market
• Could open market to more manufacturers in
  general and empower election officials

7
What the VVSGs Say

• VVSG 1.0, 1.1 have no CDF requirements
• VVSG 2.0 requires non-proprietary formats but not
  a common format for
• Data exported/exchanged between systems
• Election programming, export of cast vote records
• Reports, audit data
• Has a SHOULD requirement Manufacturers SHOULD
  use a common format across their product line and
  in general

8
Charge from EAC

• Election Assistance Commission (EAC) interested
  in interoperability
• An interoperable CDF could help automate testing,
  better constrain testing costs
• Could open market to more manufacturers
• Could expand certification model to components as
  opposed to entire system
• Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC)
  to reference a CDF in VVSG 2.0
• TGDC/NIST to develop CDF specifications to assist
  Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) for
  electronic blank ballot delivery

9
NIST/IEEE Strategy

• Work with P1622 to produce 1622.x standards,
  reference them in EAC VVSGs
• Assist in developing use case documents and
  eventual schemas
• Work with FVAP in UOCAVA areas
• NIST/IEEE developing use case, eventual schemas
  for a 1622.x UOCAVA CDF specification by Summer
  2011
• Need to decide on a format to use as basis for
  use case development
• Could develop reference implementations for
  1622.x standards to facilitate adoption, testing
• Goal develop and recommend a draft CDF standard
  by 2012

10
Road Ahead

• Other use cases are under current development in
  P1622
• Post-election tabulation auditing Neal
  McBurnett
• Remote ballot printing for UOCAVA Arthur Keller
• Interoperability Ian Piper
• Need to develop a timeline and prioritized list
  of use cases

11
Use Case Timeline

• Other use cases include
• Voter registration DB export
• Electronic pollbook interfaces
• Device event logging
• Cast ballot record
• EMS tabulation
• P1622 and TGDC to debate, prioritize
• Important to make wise decisions so as to
  maximize CDF usage

12
Discussion