1. The Automation of the U.S. Budget Appendix Volume
XML on a Shoestring
The Automation of the U.S. Budget Appendix Volume
12/2/2018

2. Budget Documents Budget Volume Analytical Perspectives
Historical Tables
Appendix
12/2/2018

3. Structure of Appendix
34 Chapters – Major Departments, Large Independent Agencies
Chapter contents contain:
Numeric data - schedules by account
Textual data
Appropriation Language
Narrative
12/2/2018

4. Manual System for Updating Appendix – A Simplified View
12/2/2018

5. Sample Hard Copy Markup
12/2/2018

6. Another example
12/2/2018

7. Why Change? OMB had promised to automate text as far back as 1979
Manual process is slow and prone to error
Physical paper moves back and forth
Handwritten, pencil changes
Possibility for printer’s errors
Limited opportunity to see updated text
12/2/2018

8. Obstacles and Constraints
Limited funding – project used small amount left over from previous initiative
Compatibility with existing process
Agencies wanted to use existing MAX A-11 data entry application for entering numbers
Final output had to be in GPO format
OMB staff familiar with manual process
Risk – publication of Budget is high profile
Management supportive but concerned with failure
Limited development time – window is 10 months between budget seasons
12/2/2018

9. History of Project 2002 – Pilot (Dept of Interior chapter)
Basic technology identified and developed
2003 to 2004 – Three more chapters
2005 – Five more chapters
12/2/2018

10. Objectives Eliminate problems of manual process
Synthesize with existing processes
Preserve format through update cycle – final output must match format of other chapters
Incorporate work flow process and change tracking for updating appropriation language
Set stage for further use of XML
12/2/2018

11. Why XML? Favorable experiences
Introduced to new technology at IBM seminar
Advice was to start small and get acquainted with technology
Attended seminars held by House of Representatives Clerk’s Office
Success with Budget Volume
Widespread and growing interest in XML among all parts of federal government
Desire for practical knowledge of technology
12/2/2018

12. Why XML?
XML advantages
Text could be easily distributed for update and then re-aggregated
No need to assemble text in different formats
Output could be produced in a variety of formats – PDF for agencies and GPO code for final publication
User update could be better controlled
Appropriation language could be tagged using House of Representatives Bill DTD
12/2/2018

13. Automated Appendix Text
12/2/2018

14. Converting from GPO to XML
Documents in GPO format were unstructured
Program that converted GPO to XML had to associate text following format codes with chapter content and structure
Example: GPO S3616 format locator code “bell” I09
GPO – print text in bold small caps
Conversion – tag text as account title
12/2/2018

15. Storing XML in Database
XML document is hierarchical and database tables are flat
Conversion program had to:
Associate each section of text with an “account” – an existing database record created for number updates
Create special text “accounts” for sections of text not associated with numbers (e.g., introductory text)
12/2/2018

16. Updating the Text
Extended MAX A-11 Data Entry application to handle text
Application previously only allowed update of numbers
Program was adapted to
Utilize existing user access control mechanisms
Allow updating of text via special custom-coded text editor embedded into application
12/2/2018

17. Updating Text – User Interface
12/2/2018

18. Updating Text – Why custom coded text editor?
Agencies were familiar with MAX A-11 program
Limited funding for Web based COTS tool
Security and limited funding for thick client COTS workstation software
Change tracking capabilities in COTS tools were limited at time of pilot
Reduced variability – users did not have to use new application
12/2/2018

19. Work Flow Text is saved at each stage of process
Appropriation language has separate work flow requirements:
Congress requires proposed language to show additions and deletions
Language must be vetted by general counsels in agencies and at OMB
12/2/2018

20. Publication Publication greatly simplified because we chose XML
Available tools – open source and commercial -obviated need for special programming to extract and format text
Agencies could view their chapters “on demand” – XML stylesheets can now produce document in PDF format
Merging of text and numbers easier
12/2/2018

21. Publication Why continue to output in GPO format?
Need to maintain consistency with manually prepared chapters
Format is still used by Appropriations committees to markup bills
Some formatting still not possible in PDF version
12/2/2018

22. Technical Analysis and Recommendations
Conducted by X-Systems, Inc. in 2005
Recommendations – reduce “error creep”
Redesign and upgrade GPO to XML conversion program
Implement XML-aware error correction utility before database load
Redesign and upgrade the database load program
Upgrade MAX A-11 to database update program to include more rigorous error correction
Minimize the practice of creating duplicate outputs
12/2/2018

23. Future Plans 13 additional chapters this year (2008 Budget)
Remaining chapters following year for 2009 Budget
12/2/2018

24. Continuing Issues Controlling user update
Late reception of enacted appropriation language
Many bills not passed until December
Converting manually prepared chapters
Structure of each chapter is idiosyncratic
Adaptation to new work flow process at OMB
Progress could not be monitored the same way as old process
12/2/2018

25. Lessons Learned
Plan small – adapting to a new technology is not accomplished overnight
Utilize expertise from multiple outside sources
Be flexible – DTD’s should not not be written in stone
Get something in users’ hands early – you will get valuable feedback
XML is a valuable, low cost tool – no need for extensive funding or management buy-in
12/2/2018

26. Link for Budget Documents
12/2/2018