1. Modular Requirements for records systems DLM Forum AGM, Budapest 12 th /13 th May 2011 Jon Garde, Journal IT jon.garde@journalit.co.uk

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Digestion From February the project team started having weekly meetings in person or by teleconference – to undertake analysis – monitor progress – review chapters

6. In depth analysis 713 responses received on draft 350 could be resolved by – Simplifying the specification, or – Providing better explanation

7. 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!

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Example “Why has the Unicode standard been chosen in preference to ISO 10646?”

12. 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.”

13. In depth analysis 713 responses received on draft 21 we did not adopt (covering 5 issues)

14. Example Bottom up disposal

15. In depth analysis 713 responses received on draft 121 responses that changed MoReq2010 – 66 adopted in full – 55 partially adopted

16. 4 Examples Change to classification (public) Service based architecture (ERG) Model services (supplier) Disposal process (?)

17. classification

18. Multiple classifications Primary Classification Secondary Classification

19. Each entity has only one class

20. But classes can still be overridden

21. service based architecture

22. Service Based Architecture

24. model services

25. Model Services

26. Model Role Service – Access control lists – Permissions model Model Metadata Service – Definition and application of contextual metadata – Templates

27. To comply with a model service A.Implement the model service OR B.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

28. disposal process diagram

29. Retention and Disposal

30. The disposal process

31. Disposal Process

32. 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

33. This year By end of 2011 DLM Forum Triennial Conference First round of extension modules released Testing programme commenced First product(s) certified

34. 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.

35. Questions Jon Garde, Journal IT jon.garde@journalit.co.uk

36. time scope 20012005-82010-2011 MoReqMoReq2MoReq2010Future LEGAL DEFENCE HEALTH FINANCE 2012+ Roadmap

37. time scope 20012005-82010-2011 MoReqMoReq2MoReq2010Future LEGAL DEFENCE HEALTH FINANCE 2012+ Roadmap