re: Agenda for 7/13 meeting

[Jason Harrop <jharrop@speedlegal.com>]

I'd like to clarify what the TC can expect back from the structural
subcommittee when it next asked to report back, and to suggest a path to
get from that to completion of the structural work.

The structural work in progress was presented by me in New Orleans in
April, and after that, by John to the group in a teleconference.

The structural SC had several teleconferences after New Orleans, mostly
about the top level containers.

The focus was on the opening paragraph (USA) or paragraphs (UK and rest
of world) which typically identify the date of the agreement and the
parties.

The reason for this focus was that it was apparent in New Orleans that
the model presented there didn't give an author much guidance as to what
elements to use - John, Peter and I each applied the model using
different elements to represent the same simple text!

As we discussed what (if anything) to do about this, other issues
emerged.  For example, how to treat headers and footers.

We reached a point where Peter and I agreed to propose a model for
top-level containers back to the group, which handles the opening
paragraph dilemma and other top level issues.

That is what we'd like to present back to the group.

In other words, its the New Orleans XHTML2 based model, with the top
level refined, plus a simple and effective way of marking up parties.

Subject to several relatively minor pieces which it remains to complete
(eg tables, signatures), this model is complete enough to mark up the
real world contracts we understand to be in scope.

We'd like to present it for feedback, including from John.

Hopefully, the TC will say "so far so good", and give a green light for
completion of the structural work.

If it does this, the pieces which need to be filled in include:

- flesh out table model

- flesh out signature model

- contents of numbering element

- approach to headers and footers

The TC could nominate people to do each of these things as discrete and
independent pieces.  Each piece could be reported back independently for
comment, fine tuning, then added to the Structure.

It is likely the TC will need to provide further guidance on some of
these pieces before they can be worked on.  John, Peter and I can help
frame the questions the TC will need to consider.  The answers/guidance
can be thought of as "requirements".

If we proceed this way, the structural work can proceed to closure at
the same time as the overall requirements process; the complete
structural model could then be published (subject to any necessary
amendments) once the overall requirements are agreed.

Just to be clear, i think that John's suggestion of "an August date for
the subcommittee report should be expected, September to
review, October to re-write as necessary, November to post, and December
for discussion and voting" doesn't take account of the straightforward
practical steps which are necessary to move the existing work to
completion and closure.

John is of course welcome to help to craft each of the outstanding
pieces, and/or to comment on them as they are presented to the TC for
addition to the Structural model.

kind regards

Jason





-------- Original Message --------
From: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
To: <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:08:29 -0700
Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] re: Agenda for 7/13 meeting

Folks,
I am thinking about the process for acceptance of the subcommittee's report,
particularly in the face of a possible counter-report from me. As
several know,
I haven't heard back from a memo that I sent some time ago, so I have no
idea if
there is need for a dissenting report or not. The memo itemized in
detail around
a dozen significant differences, some small but others large issues all
within
the subcommittee's scope, and all items that really must be part of the
first
draft Specification. I want the process to provide me an opportunity, if
necessary, to submit am alternative report.

Insofar as the timing of the Requirements document v  Structural
document, I'm
betting that loads of good ideas will be found at CoALa/Monterrey, many
of which
ought to be reflected in our requirements statement if not our technical
specification. So in terms of dates, as Dan requested in another memo, I
think
an August date for the subcommittee report should be expected, September to
review, October to re-write as necessary, November to post, and December for
discussion and voting. For the Requirements document, I think a "Working
Draft"
should be published after a full review during some specific number of
telecons,
with all its subsequent work following the same kind of schedule as for the
Specification. Please let me remind those thinking these to be
inordinately long
periods of time, that each month represents a mere 8 hours of discussion
-- one
business day.

I do NOT think a "Working Draft" of any technical specification should be
published at this time. Rather, publishing subcommittee work as a Technical
Report could work for me if so desired by the committee(s), however I do
request
that I be provided a fair opportunity to contribute via a Dissenting
Technical
Report; to publish it at the same time as the subcommittee's own Technical
Report; and to openly debate the relative merits of the competing proposals.
Now, in the event that all the issues I've raised are addressed by the
subcommittee's Technical Report, then gladly and with relief, would I
join as a
co-author. However I don't think that would speed up the timeline
significantly,
neither would it be slowed by addressing alternative views for the
Specification.

Thanks.
John