Statement of Examples SC

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Greetings!

The Examples SC meet today and would like to tender the following 
statement for discussion at the Requirements SC next week.

Very useful examples have been submitted by the Samuelson Law Clinic as 
part of the requirements process. Unfortunately, since there are pending 
change requests to the current committee draft and more expected in the 
future, it is not possible for the Examples SubCommittee to pose answers 
to the examples without the danger of its answers being either incorrect 
or misleading if not both.

Examples are the means to test the final specification and to uncover 
problems with any proposed draft that is submitted for approval by the 
Rights TC general body. Therefore, examples must be considered in light 
of a draft that is complete in all respects and that should occur prior 
to any vote on that draft, so as to provide the basis for informed 
voting on any draft seeking approval as a TC specification.

The impact of the following process would be that the Requirements SC 
need not wait until the Examples SC completes its work in order to 
continue with the requirements process. There are a number of pending 
comments from the SBL on the requirements and other submissions due to 
the Requirements SC from the SBL that will require its attention. The 
proposed process will allow the Requirements SC to continue with its 
work on requirements and be assured that all examples will be fully 
considered and discussed prior to any formal action on any drafts 
seeking approval as a TC specification.

The Examples SubCommittee proposes the following process, to be approved 
by the Requirements SC and adopted by the Rights TC to govern the 
handling of pending and future examples submitted to the Examples SC:

1. All parties are invited to submit examples, either based upon current 
submissions or entirely new examples to the Examples SC.

2. The Examples SC will meet and work on preliminary answers to 
submitted examples in its public forums, but will not issue definitive 
answers until informed by the drafting committee that is has a draft it 
thinks is ready for TC consideration. Its answers to any examples will 
be reviewed against that draft and either revised answers prepared or 
answers to unanswered examples will be prepared.

3.The Rights TC should adopt a process statement saying that all 
examples sponsored by an RLTC member must be resolved by consensus of 
the Examples SC prior to any vote on a specification by the Rights TC.

Hope everyone is having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!