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

["Scott Came" <scott@justiceintegration.com>]

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.

Thanks.
--Scott

Scott Came
President and
Principal Consultant
Justice Integration Solutions, Inc.
Olympia, Washington
360-402-6525
scott@justiceintegration.com
http://www.justiceintegration.com