[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [rights-requirements] Statement of Examples SC
On 11 June, Patrick Durusau writes: [rights-requirements] Statement of Examples SC > 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. I have a very different view of the role of the Examples Subcommittee. The Samuelson Law Clinic has submitted examples (use cases). Many of us feel the current draft specification is not able to express the requirements of those examples, but do not have the XrML expertise to verify this. I was hoping that the Examples Subcommittee would consist of XrML experts who could 1) Show us how to express the already-submitted examples in XrML, if possible. 2) Point out based on the exercise what might be useful changes in the XrML specification. Other members of the TC who are not XrML experts can then review the solutions to the examples and discuss whether they seem adequate. Reports from the Examples Subcommittee need not be "definitive". They can be relative to a particular version of the draft spec, and can be updated based on spec changes designed to deal with problems in previous expressions of the examples. To wait until we have a semi-final document before even testing it against submitted examples seems like a recipe for delay in specification approval, as follows: 1. Spec "ready for TC consideration" produced by the "drafting committee" (do we have such a committee? Isn't it just Hari?) 2. Examples subcommittee expresses examples 3. Examples subcommittee may run into problems requiring a change in the draft spec. Go to 1. 4. Or, examples subcommittee does not run into problems, but other TC members disagree with the results, and send spec and examples back to respective committees. Go to 1. I would like to see a more cooperative, incremental approach that allows more of this work to be done in parallel in the interests of avoiding roadblocks. Anne P.S. I tried to find a copy of the most recent RLTC Specification on the RLTC Web Site. Searching the "documents" for "specification" does not bring it up. It would be extremely useful to have links on the top-level RLTC Web Page to the most recent versions of all working documents: a) Specification draft b) Schema drafts c) Requirements draft d) Examples draft Anne -- Anne H. Anderson Email: Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM Sun Microsystems Laboratories 1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311 Tel: 781/442-0928 Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA Fax: 781/442-1692
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]