Proposed Rights-Examples SC message to Rights-Requirements SC

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Greetings!

I propose that the Rights-Examples SC mutually agree to send the 
following message to the Rights-Requirements SC on the issue of 
preparing answers to examples supplied as part of the requirements process:

***Rights-Examples SC Statement***

While temporarily leaderless following the departure of Bob DuCharme as 
chair, the Examples SC has not benn inactive. One of the topics for 
discussion has been how to respond to examples submitted by the 
Samuelson Law Clinic as part of the requirements process. While deeply 
appreciative of those examples, the Examples SC is in somewhat of a 
quandry on how to proceed answering those examples.

First, and most importantly, there is a large number of change requests 
pending for the initial submission from ContentGuard and no doubt more 
to follow as the specification is drafted. This places in the Examples 
SC in the position of drafting responses that may be inaccurate or even 
misleading in terms of how the Samuelson examples would be answered in 
the final version of the specification. (Note that the initial 
submission is now more than a year old and has not yet been redrafted in 
light of the various requirements that have been submitted, nor 
anticipated future requirements.) It is certainly the case that the 
Samuelson examples along with any others that are submitted must be 
answered based on the final version of the specification before even any 
internal voting on a proposed specification for wider consideration by 
OASIS members.

(Hari: Note that I went to the specification SC's home page but did not 
find the list of change requests. Is it stored elsewhere? As you recall 
we need to cite this as part of the foregoing paragraph.)

(Hari: Perhaps as part of the SBL request to re-open requirements we 
could proposed to the general body a schedule for future work that 
includes a timeline that evidences the committment to have all examples, 
not just the Samuelson examples, responded to before any internal voting 
on the final draft? I know that sounds silly but given the history of 
the TC, it could be viewed as a trust building step, in other words, 
your examples are not going to be ignored, they are on the calendar for 
consideration prior to any substantive action, etc.)

Second, the Examples SC believes that its time would be better spent on 
both current and future requirements in developing neutral (from the 
standpoint of any specification) examples that must be considered as 
part of the evaluation process of any specification prior to adoption by 
the general body. This approach will allow members of the TC more 
generally to judge the expression of requirements in examples and at 
some later date, after a proposal for a specification has been written, 
to have a more concrete basis for judging that proposal against the 
examples. Examples in this case can be thought of as various 
requirements being stated in testable fashion as opposed to more 
generalized prose.

The Examples SC therefore proposes the following:

1. To defer answering the Samuelson Law Clinic examples until such time 
as a proposal has been drafted for consideration by the TC as a whole as 
a specification.

2. That the general body agree to a calendar that mandates the answering 
of all examples, in particular those of the Samuelson Law Clinic but 
also any others, prior to action by the TC on any proposal to advance as 
a specification.

3. That the Examples SC collect and generate further examples from 
present and future requirements so as to create a set of examples that 
allow meaningful evaluation of any proposal to advance as a specification.

It should be noted that the Examples SC anticipates the re-opening of 
the requirements process and is willing to assist in providing 
guidelines for the submission of examples as part of additional 
requirements.

********************************************

Suggestions? Comments?

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps