On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Allen Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's tough reading. I can only read a few minutes at a time > before my eyes glaze over. And I haven't finished. But I > don't think I will be able to consider the big picture when > I do finish, because of the aforementioned glazing.
I'm assuming the glazing is largely due to phrasing and fairly arcane subject matter with its own unique vocabulary -- the overlap of law and a specialized area of technology -- rather than typography. But I would appreciate any clues you might contribute on how to lessen that problem. I am aware that the Dupal theme I'm using formats footnotes in small type size and am working toward improving that. (I've found a theme more suitable for customization.) I'm aiming toward both something like what you're looking at and a condensed version that omits the commentary. (I realize that the commentary will put a lot of people to sleep.) At the same time, it's necessary in creating a document that has a prayer of withstanding a concerted legal challenge to use precise terminology and to be sufficiently detailed to avoid ambiguity that could lead to different interpretations. Condensing is part of the polishing process and I have a fair distance to go in that department. > I think the problem of determining whether a program or dataset > is conforming is difficult, and I don't know if you defined this. It is not defined as such, but legally defensible tests are framed by the clause in paragraph 10 requiring specification of, "conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability" and in paragraph 11 by "fully specified conformity assessment procedures adequate to ensure interoperability." It's difficult to go much beyond establshing the legal tests in this area because the methodology necessary for conformity assessment in regard to a particular specification is variable. I agree wholeheartedly that conformity assessment is not a simple process. > But it seems to me that in a practical sense only a parser > can say if a dataset is conforming. How would you address > this? As to the specific language of the text, right now I'm inclined not to go much beyond what is already said in the body, although I may add some information in the corresponding notes. Back in the real world, parsing and comparison to a reference is about as far as you can go in terms of real-time on-the-fly data set validation. In XML markup languages, validation against the grammar specified by a reference schema or DTD is the normal method. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_schema>. But many IT standards have normative requirements that cannot be parsed, e.g., data presentation aspects. Commonly used conformance assessment methods for presentation aspects include creation or designation of a reference implementing application or creation of test suites. Under the reference application approach, developers can compare their implementations' output to that of the reference application, using a standard battery of data sets. Test suites normally establish reference displays of how particular small data sets should appear visually when rendered. The small data sets and their reference displays are commonly developed concurrently with a standard's development and implementation, allowing implementing developers to to compare results as they go, renegotiate normative requirements as necessary, etc. There's a good example of a test suite in active development and use here. <http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/TestSuite/WICD_CDR_WP1/wicdmatrix.xhtml>. It's the test suite for the WICD profiles for creating W3C Compound Document Formats. The link is to the summary matrix, showing the conformance/implementation state of several participating browser developers' implementations. If you click on the links in the column to the left of the visible table, you'll be taken to the text of the relevant normative requirement, and beneath the text of each normative requirement, there is a link to the test for that requirement. The test displays one or more graphic images or formatted text, a written description of what you should be seeing, and a link to a screenshot of what you should be seeing. If what the developer sees is what s/he is supposed to see, then the browser has passed that test. The matrix lets everyone see what how far along everyone is in implementation and conformance. There are similar test suites around for other data types, of course, e.g., audio and video. But generally speaking, what the conformity assessment procedure is largely depends on what the relevant normative requirement is. I.e., if it's not presentation but a different aspect of implementation, then a different kind of procedure will be necessary. E.g., if you are dealing with a standard for spreadsheet formulas, then the assessment procedure might call for entering particular data and to arrive at a specified mathematical result. I don't think I'm pushing the envelope too far with the legal tests I've boiled down in regard to conformity assessment procedures.. ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, which govern the preparation of international standards in the IT sector, require: "It is the responsibility of each JTC 1 Subcommittee to ensure that any conformity requirements in its standards or ISPs for implementation in products are unambiguous and that conformity to those requirements is verifiable. ... "A conformity assessment methodology may include the specification of some or all of the following: terminology, basic concepts, requirements and guidance concerning test methods, test specification and means of testing, and requirements and guidance concerning the operation of conformity assessment services and the presentation of results. ... "This policy statement specifies the JTC 1 position on interoperability and clarifies the relationship between interoperability and conformity. ... For the purpose of this policy statement, interoperability is understood to be the ability of two or more IT systems to exchange information at one or more standardised interfaces and to make mutual use of the information that has been exchanged. An IT system is a set of IT resources providing services at one or more interfaces. ... "Standards designed to facilitate interoperability need to specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability. Complexity and the number of options should be kept to a minimum and the implementability of the standards should be demonstrable. Verification of conformity to those standards should then give a high degree of confidence in the interoperability of IT systems using those standards. However, the confidence in interoperability given by conformity to one or more standards is not always sufficient and there may be need to use an interoperability assessment methodology in demonstrating interoperability between two or more IT systems in practice. "An assessment methodology for interoperability may include the specification of some or all of the following: terminology, basic concepts, requirements and guidance concerning test methods, the appropriate depth of testing, test specification and means of testing, and requirements and guidance concerning the operation of assessment services and the presentation of results. In technical areas where there is a conformity assessment methodology and an interoperability assessment methodology, the relationship between them must be specified." It all sounds great, but It's routinely ignored in an era when the international standards for IT development scene has been captured by big vendors. I'm trying to take a rather huge body of international law, antitrust law, and case decision precedents involving interoperability and accessibility down to fundamental principles, a set of criteria that eGovernment and government procurement folk, including their lawyers can use as a meta-standard for evaluation and selection of IT standards. E.g., just the European Community Court of First Instance decision in the Microsoft case last September runs nearly 1,400 paragraphs. As nearly as I can tell there are no published efforts to summarize the law governing interoperability and accessibility in standards work, which is scattered from here to Kingdom Come. I believe fervently that universal interoperability and accessibility must of necessity be the glue points in the software infrastructure of the Information Society unless we are aiming for such a society only for the wealthy. Since no one else had summarized the law in this area, I decided it was a worthy task. It may take very many more drafts to achieve a stable release. But I'm sensitive to the fact that universal interoperability and accessibility can bring about economic growth in developing nations that can dramatically improve health care, tackle the starvation problem, and raise much of humanity from other shackles of poverty. So I'm highly motivated to get this document right and really appreciate any feedback. Thank you for the helpful criticism, Marbux. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list euglug@euglug.org http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
