Yes, don’t disagree but I don’t think that is where the title is coming from. I think the whole point was to play off of Kim’s “Laws” and say there are new ones in play. There is a certain ring to laws and benefits in terms of capturing audience. It probably gets more attention than Design Requirements for Relationship Management. This is an initial work and of even more interest to me is the mutability of the requirements as a topic in play as opposed to the title of the document as a whole. One of the things we may find is that the permutations of relationships mean that even laws/requirements may need a bit of if, then. Among our next steps is taking the document apart, ideally law by law but overall is fine too as we look to reconstitute the “laws”.
We can put this in play on Tuesday, will get an agenda out and look forward to getting together then. Don’t forget to follow @irmwg and join the linkedin group and contribute to the conversation there as well.
Good balance of the weekend to all,
Sal
From: Susan Morrow [mailto:susan.morrow@avocosecure.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:56 AM
To: j stollman
Cc: Salvatore D'Agostino; dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] Laws of Relationships
I agree with you Jeff and brought up the same issue about being immutable. It also precludes the acceptance of fuzziness in relationships too.
I suppose the use of the word 'law' in technology has a different meaning than the use of it in sciences like physics and chemistry.
Susan
On 8 Mar 2015, at 05:35, j stollman <stollman.j@gmail.com> wrote: