modular requirements for records systems dlm forum agm, budapest 12 th /13 th may 2011 jon garde,...
TRANSCRIPT
Modular Requirements for records systems
DLM Forum AGM, Budapest
12th/13th May 2011
Jon Garde, Journal IT
MoReq2010®• DLM Forum members meeting in
Brussels, last November• Public consultation on draft
specification in December• Publishing first version by end of
year and full version 2 to 3 months later
Draft Consultation• Extensive feedback from Experts
Review Group• 606 responses to the consultation on
the public website• A lot of other private feedback,
especially from suppliers• 713 responses received on the draft• But actually more!• Plus 19 responses about process
Digestion• We needed to digest
the feedback• We needed to do an in
depth analysis• We needed to respond
within the specification• We needed take time to
get it right
Digestion• From February the
project team started having weekly meetings in person or by teleconference– to undertake analysis– monitor progress– review chapters
In depth analysis• 713 responses received on draft• 350 could be resolved by– Simplifying the specification, or– Providing better explanation
In depth analysis• 713 responses received on draft• 350 could be resolved by– Simplifying the specification, or– Providing better explanation
• So we rewrote the specification!
Comparison Core*Original draft•436 functional requirements•113 pages– 21 pages explanation,
and– 92 pages
requirements
•2 diagrams*Functional requirements only – excludes glossary, info. models, etc.ALSO Contrasts – with other RM specifications
Comparison Core*Original draft•436 functional requirements•113 pages– 21 pages explanation,
and– 92 pages
requirements
•2 diagrams
For publication•170 functional requirements•149 pages– 90 pages explanation,
and– 59 pages
requirements
•55 diagrams*Functional requirements only – excludes glossary, info. models, etc.ALSO Contrasts – with other RM specifications
In depth analysis• 713 responses received on draft• 221 involved, either– Minor change that could be accommodated,
or– Could be safely noted with no further action
Example• “Why has the Unicode standard been
chosen in preference to ISO 10646?”
Example• “Why has the Unicode standard been
chosen in preference to ISO 10646?”• From wikipedia entry on ISO 10646:
“For interoperability between platforms, especially if bidirectional scripts are used, it is not enough to support ISO 10646; Unicode must be implemented.”
In depth analysis• 713 responses received on draft• 21 we did not adopt• (covering 5 issues)
Example
• Bottom up disposal
In depth analysis• 713 responses received on draft• 121 responses that changed
MoReq2010– 66 adopted in full– 55 partially adopted
4 Examples• Change to classification (public)• Service based architecture (ERG)• Model services (supplier)• Disposal process (?)
classificationclassification
Multiple classificationsPrimary Classification
Secondary Classification
Each entity has only one class
But classes can still be overridden
service based architecture
service based architecture
Service Based
Architecture
Service Based Architecture
model servicesmodel services
Model Services
Model Services
Model Services• Model Role Service– Access control lists– Permissions model
• Model Metadata Service– Definition and application of
contextual metadata– Templates
To comply with a model serviceA. Implement the model serviceORB. Demonstrate equivalent functionality
by:– Show a solution with the same or better
level of functionality– Translate native data to the MoReq2010
XML format on export
disposal process diagram
disposal process diagram
Retention and Disposal
The disposal process
Disposal Process
MoReq2010®• The MoReq2010 work programme
has been a year long project• Kicked off at DLM Forum Madrid,
May 2010• Launch of MoReq2010 specification
at DLM Forum Budapest, May 2011
This year
• By end of 2011• DLM Forum Triennial Conference• First round of extension modules
released• Testing programme commenced• First product(s) certified
Towards MoReq2012??• MoReq Governance Board adopting
annual business plan• Technical working groups– Incorporation of national standards• e.g. In UK eGMS, LGCLS, etc.
– Incorporation of new technologies• Cloud computing, CMIS, etc.
– Incorporation of specific industries• Pharmaceutical, Health, Legal, etc.
time
scop
e
2001 2005-8 2010-2011
MoReq MoReq2 MoReq2010 Future
LEGA
LDE
FENC
E
HEALTH
FINAN
CE
2012+
Roadmap
time
scop
e
2001 2005-8 2010-2011
MoReq MoReq2 MoReq2010 Future
LEGA
LDE
FENC
E
HEALTH
FINAN
CE
2012+
Roadmap