Requirements SC Meeting
Date: December 04, 2002
Time: 11:00 – 12:00 PM EDT
Roll Call
Hari Reddy, ContentGuard
Aaron Burstein, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
Thomas DeMartini, ContentGuard
Brad Gandee, ContentGuard
Bob Glushko, CommerceOne
Thomas Hardjono,VeriSign
Brian LaMacchia, Microsoft
M. Paramasivam, Microsoft
Harry Piccariello, ContentGuard
Dean Rowan, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
Agenda:
1. Review open action items
2. Continue the discussion on reviewing the RLTC Requirements document now at revision 15.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/analysis-wip/Rev15/RLTC%20Requirements%20Rev%2015.doc
Issued / Status/
Date
1 / 10-02-02 / Closed/
10-30-02 / Lisa Rein / D: Provide reference to the comment that “most rights expression languages to date have rights and permissions” to the email list
R: Lisa stated that she was incorrect. Lisa will provide list with information by 10-23-02.
2 / 10-02-02 / Closed/ 10-16-02 / Lisa Rein / D: Provide list of “10 words” to discuss on email.
R: Will add to the list provided by Deirdre and Aaron
3 / 10-02-02 / Closed/
10-02-02 / Thomas DeMartini / D: Provide the two clarifying questions resulting from the email analysis by Thomas and Patrick
R: email sent to SC list on 10-02-02
4 / 10-02-02 / Closed/
10-16-02 / Deirdre Mulligan / D: Provide a list of terms to be defined on email
R: Sent to list on 10-16…not needed in light of Action 8.
5 / 10-02-02 / Closed/ 10-02-02 / Peter Schirling / D: Post comment on parallel systems to the email list
R: John Erickson responded on email list.
6 / 10-02-02 / Closed/
10-16-02 / Aaron Burstein / D: Provide information on schedule to the email list.
R: Provided a synopsis of the OASIS TC Process. There was misunderstanding by the group…several members were expecting a suggested schedule which was not Aaron’s understanding.
7 / 10-02-02 / Moved to Action 11 / Deirdre Mulligan / D: Provide a list of issues regarding a “general expression language” referencing the Sameulson submission to the email list
R: Aaron sent response to the list on 10-11-02…SC would like more information…Moved to Action 11
8 / 10-09-02 / Closed/
10-15-02 / Parama / D: Provide an Introduction to the Requirements Document to clarify the scope and the terminology used in the Requirements Document.
R: Parama sent Draft Introduction to the SC list on 10-15-02
9 / 10-16-02 / Closed/
10-17-02 / John Erickson / D: Provide input to Action 8 with respect to permissions.
R: John made the addition and sent it to the list on 10-17-02
10 / 10-16-02 / Closed/
10-17-02 / Hari Reddy / D: Update the Requirements Document upon receiving final input from Action 8 and 9.
R: Done…updated as Requirements Rev 14.
11 / 10-23-02 / Closed/
10-30-02 / Deirdre Mulligan and Brian LaMacchia / D: Clarify expressions not mathematically expressible in the current language
R: Will meet on 10-24 or 10-25 and report back to the SC on 10-30-02.
12 / 10-30-02 / Closed/ 11-06092 / Req SC / D: Submit any comments on the RLTC Requirements Introduction by 11/6/02.
R: No comments were posted. No objections were noted in the 11-06-02 call. SC has decided to agree on the Introduction.
13 / 10-30-02 / Open / Deirdre Mulligan / Submit schedule proposal for reviewing examples or use cases.
14 / 11-06-02 / Done / Req SC / Review the Requirements Document against the Introduction. Comments are due before the 11-12-02 meeting.
15 / 11-06-02 / Done / Hari Reddy / Update Requirements Document and send to SC to review
16 / 11-20-02 / Open / Thomas DeMartini / Submit descriptive example to be placed into the texts for SX15 and R25.
17 / 11-20-02 / Closed / Aaron Burstein, Thomas DeMartini, Lisa Rein / Submit changes to Introduction Paragraph 5.
18 / 12-04-02 / Hari Reddy, Bob Glushko / Develop a schedule for the Requirements SC
Administrative:
Hari asked if there were any objections to approving the minutes for 11/13/02. There were none. Minutes were approved.
Hari asked if there were any objections to approving the minutes for 11/20/02. There were none. Minutes were approved.
1. Review Action Items
13 / 10-30-02 / Open / Deirdre Mulligan / Submit schedule proposal for reviewing examples or use cases.Aaron, sent a note to the list. Aaron discussed what that note to the list said.
Hari asked if there was any discussion as to when the examples will be submitted. He said that we need an Examples SC chair; Bob DuCharme was not able to do it due to his workload.
Harry: We have an open item as to reviewing examples and use cases. Aaron put out an email saying you’re sending out a schedule for examples. Is there a connection between that task and the email you put out? I’m confused about schedule for delivering examples to the examples SC. Task was “schedule for reviewing examples and use cases before requirements can continue.” We’ve been holding, waiting for a schedule on reviewing examples and use cases.
Hari: I have the same questions. How long will the examples committee be reviewing them?
Harry: Before we get there, there may be a clarification in what the task is. We’re discussing a schedule for delivery to the examples SC. There’s no review process in there.
Hari: You’ll have examples to the SC by next Wed (Dec 11) ?
Aaron: Right
Harry: Is that the task Deirdre took on for reviewing examples and use cases?
Aaron: Not sure what…hard for us to predict a schedule for the examples subcommittee. Our input was to give the examples.
Harry: Deirdre took on a task to develop a schedule. We’ve been holding back the requirements. She wanted to take a top down approach and she wanted to work from the bottom up. Therefore, she wanted to hold off requirements until we got a schedule for reviewing examples and use cases.
Brian: I’m confused. What I understand is a little different. Thought the issue is she wanted to submit a number of examples to the examples SC and she didn’t want requirements closed until she had an opportunity to do that. The requirements SC said we want a schedule when you are going to present these things. She said she wanted to run it by me before sending it to the examples committee. Then there was an offline item to see how long it would take for her to present it, and then there was a date given to the requirements SC as to when they were going to be delivered. What is the date she is going to deliver?.
Hari: There was supposed to be an estimate on how long it should take to go through all the examples. Thought this was based on others experience on doing this type of analysis.
Harry: She wanted to take a bottom up approach before we completed requirements.
Brian: As far as I am aware, the concern was she had a series of high-level scenarios that she wanted to make sure were reflected in concrete examples the example SC was going to look at. Don’t know about schedules outside of her particular scenarios of interest.
Hari: Now we ask the examples SC to come back with a schedule based on the input.
Aaron: I’m looking at the minutes from last time and there is a statement from Harry saying I thought we were going to get the examples to the requirement SC. I think there is some difference in how we were going to this process. We discussed them how Brian laid them out.
Harry: You’re going to be bringing over your examples and then the examples SC will do the bottom up schedule to bring the examples to the requirements SC.
14 / 11-06-02 / Done / Req SC / Review the Requirements Document against the Introduction. Comments are due before the 11-12-02 meeting.Hari: Item 14, we had for the whole SC, to review the requirements doc against the intro and comments which were due on the 11/12/02 meeting. I think we’ve gone through this process. Any objections to closing this? No comments. Marked as closed.
15 / 11-06-02 / Done / Hari Reddy / Update Requirements Document and send to SC to reviewHari: Item 15, update requirements doc and send to SC to review. That’s ongoing, I’ve been sending out revisions based upon each week’s meetings. I’m going to mark as closed. Sent out version 16 to everyone. Since we did not have a general body meeting last week, though it might be helpful as a normal SC report to give people a pointer to that. I haven’t received any input.
16 / 11-20-02 / Thomas DeMartini / Submit descriptive example to be placed into the texts for SX15 and R25.Hari: Item 16, Thomas DeMartini, submit descriptive example to put in text for SX15 and R25.
Thomas: I’ve not gotten around to it and I hope to do it soon. It’s what’s in the minutes last time, just have to clarify and put it down on paper.
2. Continue the discussion on reviewing the RLTC Requirements document now at revision 15.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/analysis-wip/Rev15/RLTC%20Requirements%20Rev%2015.doc
Hari: Last version, revision 16, had all the changes to date and it includes action item 17, Aaron, Thomas and Lisa to submit changes to intro on paragraph 5, so revision 16 has everything but description examples for SX15 and R25.
Hari: Next, continue the discussion on reviewing the requirements document. I’ve sent notes to people, especially John Erickson to see if he had other comments on the intro. I haven’t received anything and there haven’t been any comments on the email list. Any discussion items for the requirements doc that people would like to discuss? (Silence)
Hari: I would like to ask what is the path forward from here. Does anyone have any suggestions? (Silence) Are there any suggestions?
Brad: People keep trying to finalize the document and people keep giving objections for another round of activities that take weeks and months. How do we get to a final document?
Hari: We have no schedule…
Brad: For anything.
Hari: People are not prioritizing the work; there are no due dates. So again, it’s getting hard to figure out what the process is. Right now, we’ve been asked by the General Body to achieve consensus on this document and I’d like to have a discussion on that.
Harry: I’d like to ask the two chairs of the SC to put a schedule together and compel us to get it done. There are two chairs of this SC and a schedule needs to be put together.
Hari: Bob, should we take that action.
Bob: I haven’t been functioning as co-chair since Sept 12, and I have no objection to Hari doing a schedule.
Hari: Will you help me?
Bob: I’d like to look at it.
Harry: There are 2 chairs, right? I’d like a schedule put together by the two chairs and have it presented to us. The two chairs get a schedule agreed upon by them and we’ll have to follow a schedule.
Bob: It’s worth a try.
Brad: The work has been done for months… We’ve clarified the introduction.
Harry: We’ve looked at stuff that has been here for months.
Bob: I think we have had to clarify stuff. I say, Hari and I can do that. I’m at the XML conference next week, we can meet on Dec. 16 and try to hammer something out.
Hari: Okay. If anyone has any input as to ideas about the schedule, please forward it and what Bob and I will do is aggregate it.
Harry: Therefore the comments need to be given to you by the 16th for the requirements schedule. So those comments will be closed by the 16th and you and Bob will come up with a schedule.
Hari: Yes
Hari: Are there any other comments on the requirements doc? I asked this before, are people okay with what we’ve done here?
Aaron: I agree with Bob, I think some important steps have been taken, that the document has been made clearer in the last few weeks.
Hari: A concern is if we have a schedule, we may be able to synchronize the other SC’s. A lot of people on the TC need to prioritize their work and on the RLTC with the other stuff they’re doing. That will really help out. It also comes to a point of diminishing returns. We can continue to make changes to different words, but there comes a point to where we need to evaluate if we are actually creating value. Sometimes we did, but I want the SC to understand we need to come up with some boundary condition. It’s hard to go to the general body and say ‘we have no schedule.’
Hari: There was a discussion at the last meeting to cancel the Dec. 11 meeting because several people will be at the XML conference. So, if there are no objections, I’ll send that note out. But we’ll still have the general body meeting on the 11th.
Hari: We have today and Dec. 18. We’ve already canceled, Dec. 25 and Jan 1 meeting. I sent a note out we’re not formally meeting on those dates, I’d like people to continue this process and use email list serv.
Hari: Any other items people would like to discuss?
Bob asked some questions concerning the recent announcement between Sony and ContentGuard and its relevance to the work of the TC. Brad and Harry responded that it doesn’t have any relevance.