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

[John Erickson <john_erickson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>]

For example, the Samuelson Clinic/EPIC submitted their requirements two weeks
ago yesterday, and EFF submitted theirs two weeks ago tomorrow, and neither is
yet available for public viewing from the RLTC document repository. If it is so
critical to follow a particular schedule, then I would think that these
submissions would have been made public as quickly as possible...John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Deirdre Mulligan" <dmulligan@law.berkeley.edu>
To: "Bob Glushko" <glushko@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU>
Cc: "Bob Atkinson" <bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com>; "Rights-Requirements SC"
<rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: [rights-requirements] HIPAA, HL7 and general questions


> This echoes a conversation I had with Hari this morning. It is my
> understanding that outreach to some organizations identified on the list
> began, at the earliest, in late June. Appreciating the complexity of XML
> to the uninitiated and the fact that several organizations contacted do
> not typically participate in technical standard setting, I would assume
> that submitting a requirements document is a labor intensive effort.
> Once you've actively solicited input from folks, my experience suggests
> that not dealing with the input in a fair, respectful, comprehensive and
> timely manner engenders ill will and distrust.  Not an ideal outcome. I
> think it would be a mistake to stick to the Aug 28 deadline if this is
> the cost.
>
> Bob Glushko wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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
>
> --
> Deirdre K. Mulligan
> Acting Clinical Prof. and Director
> Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy clinic
> Boalt Hall
> University of California
> 346 North Addition
> Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
>
> v 510.642.0499
> f 510.643.4625
> dmulligan@law.berkeley.edu
> http://www.samuelsonclinic.org
>
>