Re: [rights-requirements] Statement of Examples SC

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Thomas,

DeMartini, Thomas wrote:

>Anne, I don't think the Example SC disagrees with you.  They are not
>saying, as you are not saying, that the Spec and Examples SCs should not
>work in parallel: they should.  They are saying that the Requirements
>and Example SCs should not work in parallel until there is an approved
>Requirements document.  Once there is an approved requirements document
>the Spec and Examples SC can work in parallel on the process you
>describe and the Requirements SC can make additions/changes to the
>Requirements document as appropriate.
>  
>
Sigh, and I had such hopes that we were on the same page.

All the statement I drafted says is that examples can be meaningfully 
answered only if there is a specification that is regarded as stable 
enough for consideration by the TC. I am not sure how that leads to the 
conclusion that a requirements document must be approved before that 
happens. I think Anne's point that some informal answering of examples 
could lead to greater understanding of XrML in the meantime is a very 
good one.

Let's just be brutally honest. The SC charged with preparing the 
specification for TC approval has simply stopped functioning on the 
basis of not having an "approved" requirements documents. There are both 
practical as well as theoretical reasons for that position. There are 
also less generous explanations for that behavior. On the other hand, 
the Requirements SC wants examples to be completed so requirements can 
be evaluated. Not unreasonable, and as I pointed out in the statements 
for the Examples SC, there are equally reasonable considerations to not 
answer the examples as part of the requirements process. I am certain 
less generous explanations exist for the behavior of both the 
Requirements and Examples SCs respectively.

The current situation looks to me more and more like some sort of 
Mexican standoff and I personally don't think that continuation of it is 
likely to lead to a conclusion that is acceptable to anyone. I can 
honestly say that if the current specification draft came for a vote 
today, not only would the SBL vote against it but would actively 
campaign both within the TC and OASIS for its defeat as an OASIS 
standard. Having said that, as in all OASIS TCs, the TC process, if 
allowed to go forward in a meaningful fashion by all members of the TC, 
could and should lead to the SBL changing that position and actually 
favoring and campaigning for the adoption of the committee 
specification. But we are never going to get to that point if SCs or 
individuals decide to simply wait each other out.

I really don't have the cycles required to also participate in the 
Examples SC but I am doing so in hopes that by crossing the "turf lines" 
in this TC that it might lead to some semblance of the cooperation that 
I have found in other TCs. Perhaps I am just overly optimistic or naive. 
Or perhaps my efforts are "irrelevant" as described by one commentator 
on our process.

Personally I think commentators who contribute nothing to the standards 
process are the ones who are "irrelevant." I would like to see greater 
cooperation in the TC prove that I am correct in that opinion.

I will try to post additional comments next week on how to use the 
statement of the Examples SC as a way to go forward (constructively) in 
this TC.

Hope everyone is having a great day!

Patrick

>&Thomas.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anne Anderson [mailto:Anne.Anderson@Sun.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:30 AM
>To: Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
>Cc: rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [rights-requirements] Statement of Examples SC
>
>On 11 June, Patrick Durusau writes: [rights-requirements] Statement of
>Examples SC
> > The Examples SubCommittee proposes the following process, to be
>approved 
> > by the Requirements SC and adopted by the Rights TC to govern the 
> > handling of pending and future examples submitted to the Examples SC:
> > 
> > 1. All parties are invited to submit examples, either based upon
>current 
> > submissions or entirely new examples to the Examples SC.
> > 
> > 2. The Examples SC will meet and work on preliminary answers to 
> > submitted examples in its public forums, but will not issue
>definitive 
> > answers until informed by the drafting committee that is has a draft
>it 
> > thinks is ready for TC consideration. Its answers to any examples
>will 
> > be reviewed against that draft and either revised answers prepared or
>
> > answers to unanswered examples will be prepared.
> > 
> > 3.The Rights TC should adopt a process statement saying that all 
> > examples sponsored by an RLTC member must be resolved by consensus of
>
> > the Examples SC prior to any vote on a specification by the Rights
>TC.
>
>I have a very different view of the role of the Examples
>Subcommittee.
>
>The Samuelson Law Clinic has submitted examples (use cases).
>Many of us feel the current draft specification is not able to
>express the requirements of those examples, but do not have the
>XrML expertise to verify this.  I was hoping that the Examples
>Subcommittee would consist of XrML experts who could
>
>1) Show us how to express the already-submitted examples in XrML,
>   if possible.
>
>2) Point out based on the exercise what might be useful changes
>   in the XrML specification.
>
>Other members of the TC who are not XrML experts can then review
>the solutions to the examples and discuss whether they seem
>adequate.
>
>Reports from the Examples Subcommittee need not be "definitive".
>They can be relative to a particular version of the draft spec,
>and can be updated based on spec changes designed to deal with
>problems in previous expressions of the examples.
>
>To wait until we have a semi-final document before even testing
>it against submitted examples seems like a recipe for delay in
>specification approval, as follows:
>
>1. Spec "ready for TC consideration" produced by the "drafting
>   committee" (do we have such a committee?  Isn't it just Hari?)
>2. Examples subcommittee expresses examples
>3. Examples subcommittee may run into problems requiring a change
>   in the draft spec.  Go to 1.
>4. Or, examples subcommittee does not run into problems, but other
>   TC members disagree with the results, and send spec and
>   examples back to respective committees.  Go to 1.
>
>I would like to see a more cooperative, incremental approach that
>allows more of this work to be done in parallel in the interests
>of avoiding roadblocks.
>
>Anne
>
>P.S. I tried to find a copy of the most recent RLTC
>     Specification on the RLTC Web Site.  Searching the
>     "documents" for "specification" does not bring it up.  It
>     would be extremely useful to have links on the top-level
>     RLTC Web Page to the most recent versions of all working
>     documents:
>
>     a) Specification draft
>     b) Schema drafts
>     c) Requirements draft
>     d) Examples draft
>
>Anne
>  
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!