RE: [rights-requirements] HIPAA, HL7 and general questions

[Bob Glushko <glushko@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU>]

> Whether
> we will be voted up or down by the broader membership will depend on the
> quality of the product and its actual manifest utility, not the quantity
> of the requirements gathered in its production; the two are not the same
> thing. More requirements are better than fewer, but we will never manage
> to personally meet all of the customers of this technology.
>
>  

i strongly disagree. 

 If people voted only because of the "quality of the
product" rather than appearances George W wouldn't have been elected
president. People vote on their perception of the "quality of the
process" as well, and the number and diversity of the organizations
that contributed requirements to our TC will be the indicator that we can
publicize and that they can use.  We need to do a better job of
engaging organizations that might later  argue that we ignored their
concerns.  I am hardly proposing an infinite delay - in my last
message I said about Liora Alschuler, the XML/HL7 expert, that

I recommend that we invite her to join our TC, at least for
a few weeks, so that she lead this evaluation and insertion of the
HL7/HIPAA requirements into our set. 


"A few weeks" might go a long way toward making our proposals
credible. We all want an OASIS specification that is PERCEIVED to
be comprehensive and balanced in version 1.0, rather than one that gets
criticized as a "rubber stamp" of XRML and that will face a
long tail of incremental criticism and revisions before it is viewed as
credible.   

bob