[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: January 7 Draft minutes
eContracts conference call Jan 7. 2004 Draft Minutes In attendance: Jim Keane Charles Gillam Dave Marvit Jason Harrop John McClure Rolly Chambers John Messing The agenda includes: Approval of 2 sets of minutes (from Nov 12th and 19th), then discussion of the requirements document, and XHTML2 status [In Dan’s Absence, Dave takes on the role of acting chairman.] Minutes approved Next Agenda Item: Requirements document discussion Rolly: Thanks to everyone who provided suggestions. The second draft has been up since just before Christmas. I have not received any comments at all. I hope everyone has had a chance to look it over. The primary changes are: I added a section on difficult problems to be addressed. I also, at the end of 4.4 added a paragraph that makes reference to coming up with an ontology for the semantic contract terms. I realized that we hadn’t said that the semantic contract terms would be *in* an ontology. I also added refined phrasing and terms to clear things up. John McClure sent a request to add a technical requirements section. Some of the requirements looked like they had been addressed, or were broadly addressed. Some of the others I couldn’t trace back to the scenarios with any clarity. I thought that was an important criterion. Finally, I thought there would be an opportunity down the road to address these issues – things like using RDF for metadata and so forth. So I didn’t use everything you sent, but I did use some of it. As always comments, suggestions are in order and will be most welcome. John McClure: The scenarios were not supposed to be technical so I can understand how it was difficult to trace technical requirements to them. Even so, the requirements document... The bottom line is that we were to have a technical requirements section. Rolly: I don’t know that there is a right or wrong. I did not have that same understanding. Jason: I does make sense to have business requirements first, and then go on to technical requirements. The problem is that the technical requirements are often part of the solution. John Messing: I think that there is a lot of wisdom in starting with business requirements and then moving on to technical requirements. Dave: To what extent are they separable? John McClure: To the extent that it is a requirements doc it should include... I’m willing to go with the consensus. Rolly: The notion of a requirements document is ambiguous. I did proceed on the assumption that it is a business requirements document more than a technical requirements document. I don’t think you work is lost – we can come back to that. Jason: Can I raise a discussion of 4.1.1 Conformance to a w3C recommendation? Can we be more specific? John McClure: Would it make sense to put my technical requirements on the list? Jason: I’d like to see a section that describes explicitly what is out of scope. One example might be ‘tracking changes’. We might agree that there should be a method of tracking changes, but it can be handled by surrounding software – and needn’t be included in the standard. Rolly: I’m trying to see where I would pull that kind of information from. Jason: I put some of that kind of info in my scenarios. [Some discussion about what would belong in a scenario, and what might belong in a section of ‘thing sexcluded’.] John McClure: I’m afraid that it is a bit open ended. Jason: One way of making it not open ended is to look at the things mentioned in the scenarios that we are NOT going to support… Rolly: Jason, can you put something together..? John Messing: That seems like it could be useful to people down the line Rolly: Back to the 4.1.1. If we drop the W3C, would that do it? [Note: 4.1.1 reads: “It must conform to applicable W3C XML-related recommendations” -DM] John Messing: Can we flag this as something that we should revisit – either by dropping it or making it more clear? Would it be a fair way to proceed? Jason: That sounds like a good idea to me. John Messing: We could use this as a procedure? [flagging those items that are not clearly agreed upon, and then moving on to other issues] Dave: Unanimity…! John McClure: I am wondering about putting together an appendix of semantic data elements Rolly: Do you mean element names, adjective names… that sort of thing? Jason: This goes back to another question. Is there a core set of terms that it makes sense to itemize? Rolly: Peter should be heard on this… [We could have a default set of terms that can be replaced by a compendium of industry specific terms.] [Discussion of having the capability of plugging in different sets of semantic terms.] Rolly to draft this as a requirement for consideration. John McClure proposes that we figure out the set of terms (not necessarily their names) for the minimal subset. Jim Keane: That sounds like it could be reinventing some work done by the DOJ. [Discussion about what the core set might include] Add to the agenda for next time: Can we have a core set, even if it can be superceded? Dave: Anything else anyone feels we should discuss today? Rolly: There has been some discussion about all of the LegalXML folks getting together in New Orleans some time in April. John Messing: There has been discussion about having the various TCs collecting. I’ll post the message to the list tonight… Next meeting on Jan 14. Note that Rolly will *not* be able to attend the next meeting. As such we probably should not have discussion of the requirements document on the agenda.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]