RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Semantic Item Reqs

["John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>]

Hi Dan,
Sure, I reaffirm my committment to create some diagrams reflecting the DC
Scenario. A few questions about this though.

(1) The DC Scenario defines data requirements relevant to 14 events, from
requisitioning through refunds. It also states a flow of these events
indicating, for instance, that a refund event is not functionally dependent on a
requisitioning event. Is this what you want a picture of ?

(2) Insofar as how it fits with the Linking and Semantic requirements, the DC
Scenario proposes both XML elements as well as names for semantic items. The
elements would be located in an RDF metadata stream -- separate from the
contract -- and the names for semantic items would appear in  lgl:names
attributes. Are you interested in a diagram that shows the application of
semantic items, <Block> element, and RDF metadata ?

(3) Are you considering including these diagrams in the Requirements document?

Though your memo seems to imply that the TC's consideration of the Linking and
Semantic requirements I've proposed are contingent on my producing these
diagrams, I have to believe that the detail I submitted about the <Block>
element and the lgl:names attribute is welcomed by the TC in order to:

	o  understand the entire scope of my proposal;
	o  clarify the problems to be discussed next call, by
	demonstrating the alternative solutions available; and
	o  provide fodder for the Requirements document.

And I substantially agree with you that the outcome of these proposals is hardly
preordained one way or the other.
Regards,
John