[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Statement of Examples SC
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!
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]