Re: [geolang-comment] Montreal minutes posted

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Mary Nishikawa
| 
| Thanks for getting the minutes out in a jiffy and sorry for having
| to skip out of the meeting to catch my plane. I think that for the
| next time, it would be best not to schedule the meeting so late
| after the conference.

It's clear that we need to do *something* in order to avoid this
happening in Baltimore as well. We'll need to look at the schedule a
bit more closely and either move the OASIS meetings forward or make
sure that everyone knows when the GeoLang meeting ends, so that they
don't leave too early.
 
| I have some comments.
| 
|  From the minutes:
| "The meeting made the following decisions"

Obviously we'll have to change this in the light of what John said.
 
| You could tone it down a bit by saying that the following were
| discussed and will be commented on from absent members later on
| (something like that).

That's what I propose to do.
 
| Here is my reply anyway.

Thanks for providing feedback on this. It helps to know what the rest
of you are thinking.
 
| "The subject indicators for each code should take the form of rows in
| a table, with columns for English names, French names, each of the
| three codes, and finally the subject identifiers themselves. "
| 
| I am not so sure about this. Can we discuss this a little more?

Certainly! This is just a first rought draft, and the whole purpose of
it is to give the TC a starting point for discussion. I felt it would
be easier to discuss this if we had a proposal people could look at.

| I am not that happy with tables. The structure should be as simple
| as possible.  

I'm not too happy, either, but it's a bit difficult to think of a good
alternative. The alternative would be to repeat for each code
something like

  "The geographical region indicated by ISO 3166 codes 'XX', 'XXX',
  and 'YYY' with the name 'Zzzzzzzz' in English and 'Qqqqqqq' in
  French."

We could do that, but a table seemed simpler and more reader-friendly.
Opinions and suggestions are much welcome, however.

| What do you mean by subject identifiers? Please explain (I have not
| looked at your examples yet).

The subject identifiers are the URIs of the subject indicators,
basically. They are included in the table to make the whole thing a
bit more self-documenting.
 
| "Accompanying the HTML file should be machine-readable metadata in
| the form of both XTM and RDF files, linked to from the HTML file,
| which would then serve as the point of entry. "
| 
| This seems to follow what we discussed in TM Published subjects
| earlier in the morning, i.e., about what we would like to see in the
| recommendations (second deliverable). This needs to be added for
| those who did not attend the earlier meeting.

Good point. I'll add something to that effect.
 
| It needs to be made clear that what we are working on is following
| the progress of the TM Published subjects committee (We really need
| to vote on the structure ASAP). The work is being done in tandem, so
| to speak, but it is not obvious to onlookers.

I agree. I need to document that more clearly, both in the minutes and
in the proposal. So far I haven't publicized the proposal at all,
because things are in such flux at the moment, and because so few
people have been able to provide input yet.
 
| "The XTM metadata should be separated into three files: one for
| metadata about the PSI set, one for the information provided about
| the subjects in the source standard, and one for mappings from the
| old subject identifiers to the new. "
| 
| This sound a little complicated and it is not so clear. It would be
| good to submit a proposal to the committee, 

Done. :)

| and it would be good to discuss on IRC.
 
I agree. We could call an (unofficial) IRC meeting at a time in the
future that gives the TC members enough time to review and digest the
current proposal. In the IRC meeting we can discuss this so that we
know what the issues people have with the proposal are. 

Then I can make a new proposal before Baltimore, and the Baltimore
meeting can (officially) discuss issues (unofficially) raised in the
IRC meeting.  Essentially, the IRC meeting will then provide feedback
on the first proposal and prepare the agenda for the next meeting.

How does that sound?

John, will you be in Baltimore? Would be good if you could be...

| Try getting all committee members involved, no matter how minor the
| tasks.  You know that I enjoy doing all this stuff :-))

It's difficult to break something like this into smaller tasks,
unfortunately. The next task for the committee members, however, is
fairly straighforward: to review the proposal I posted.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >