SBL Objection #2

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Hari,

Assuming that we are going in order of my outline, the next SBL 
objection up for discussion would be:

>2. Inadequate Requirements Gathering:
>
>The original requirements period for this TC was inconsistent with it charter to support a "wide variety of business models" since it allowed a grossly inadequate time period to develop requirements from business communities such as healthcare and financial services, as well as libraries on the more academic side. Unfortunately, for all parties to the TC, including the SBL, the debate over the requirements gathering took on a life of its own, which has consumed weary hours of the TC's time without producing either a consensus in the TC or more requirements for the TC to consider.
>
>Let's simply assume that the original time for requirements was an effort to meet an outside deadline in a non-OASIS forum. That process has gone its own way and the original motivation to close requirements early no longer obtains. I would suggest that we work very diligently on the requirements we have, which need not be complete in order for the examples sub-committee to do its work, and at the same time, re-open the requirements process. I think we will find that most of the requirements have already been submitted and what will come in will actually be use cases that will help test the rights expression language. 
>
I do not intend to discuss who said what, and when they said it in the 
debate over the requirements process. I don't think that is a good use 
of the SC's time. I would like for participants to indicate whether they 
see any requirements submitted by healthcare, financial services or 
libraries, just to name the three from my summary, in the current 
document repository.

Assuming that the answer is no, what I would like to focus on is how can 
we go forward from that shared understanding?

My concrete suggestion for this particular objection is as follows:

1. By the next requirements SC meeting, that members of the SC submit on 
the mailing list any proposed interest groups that should be approached 
for requirements.

2. That we select, at the next requirements SC meeting, a short 
introduction to the DRM areana, I understand Thomas DeMartini did 
something along these lines at Berkeley.(? sense impression data and may 
be entirely incorrect.)

3. That a date for submission of requirements be fixed by the 
requirements SC.

4. That members of the SC task themselves specifically with contacting 
particular interest groups and attaching the short introduction 
referenced above.

5. That members of the SC (yes, another volunteer sort of job) offer to 
assist groups interested in filing requirements with any questions that 
they may have. Perhaps on one of the public-comment lists? That would 
make sure that all new requirement submitters got the same answers to 
common questions.

Hope that everyone is having a great day!

Patrick

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