OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-intj-exmndr message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: First draft milestone, and prep for next week's call

MNDR Subcommittee members...

As our first milestone approaches this Friday, I imagine at least some of you may be in the same boat I'm in, which is that you've sketched out ideas for your sections, but don't necessarily have them in nice-flowing prose yet. (Except for you John!)

Anyway, I think we should use next week's TC conference call to provide the TC with a good set of candidate normative rules around which the deliverable will be based. Top priority would be the MUST and MUST NOT rules, followed by the SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs.

So, I'd like to suggest for Friday that we each list out the rules we know about for each of our sections. Keeping to the outline should allow the TC to follow along, since that's what they're expecting the structure to be.

If particular rules deserve some supporting text, or if you already have such text available, then by all means share that. My objective here is to make sure anything controversial gets an early airing, so that there are no surprises when it comes time to vote on the spec in April. And, there's no sense writing a lot of text if the TC ultimately disagrees with the proposed normative rule.

Here are some thoughts per section:

Section 1 (Ellen)
--mostly non-normative, but...
--"Principles" are something the TC likely should agree to (the ones in the outline are a good start, but there are likely others)

Section 2 (Tom)
--Definitions will largely be filled in by the rest of us as we need to define terms in our sections
--Usage scenarios are non-normative
--The main normative content in this section would be pulling stuff out of Mike Hulme's paper. If you don't have a recent copy of that, you should ask Mike (or I can provide one after I check in with him). His paper is already written in a normative style.

Section 3 (Scott)
--I'll turn some of the stuff in my process whitepaper into normative rules...should be easy.
--This section will mostly be normative, though maybe a few SHOULDs here and there

Section 4 (Scott)
--Probably a very short section
--Mostly non-normative (or at least SHOULDs)
--A few normative things on what model artifacts need to be produced

Section 5 (Nancy)
--Two kinds of normative rules: mapping information, and mapping process
--Convert Nancy's spreadsheet template into normative mapping information rules that are presentation-independent (i.e., not reliant on using a spreadsheet to record the info)
--Process rules: two key ones: map to GJXDM in a way that's semantically consistent w/ domain model concepts, and use GJXDM elements whenever they're semantically consistent w/ domain model concepts (that is...don't use them if their defs don't match the concept, and if there's something in GJXDM that matches the concept, don't reinvent something else)
--Non-normative: mapping scenarios

Section 6 (John, Scott on extensions)
--Loads of normative rules, many of which John has proposed in his first draft
--Extensions: all of our old friends (typesub vs. not, inclusion vs referencing, etc.)

Section 7 (John)
--Mostly normative, can pull quite a bit from the UBL NDRs (some of these are actually in John's first draft for section 6)

Section 8 (Scott)
--Mostly normative, but I probably won't get to this by Friday.
--I need to motivate a discussion of this on the main TC list soon


These are of course just thoughts...feel free to use them or not as you see fit.

I am interested in what you all think of the plan for the Friday milestone.


Scott Came
President and Principal Consultant
Justice Integration Solutions, Inc.
Olympia, Washington

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]