[stdsreg] Minutes of StdsReg committee 7 May 2002 [N016]

["Karl F. Best" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>]

Minutes of the Standards Registry committee
conference call #6, 7 May 2002 [N016]


Attendence: Karl Best, Karen Boehme, Bob Hager, John Ketchell, Bob
Hager, Monica Vago (briefly)

(Call hosted by Monica Vago)

1. Introduction

Roll call and welcome from Karl Best.  The agenda was approved (document
N014).

2. Approval of record of fifth meeting (document N013)

The record was accepted with a clarificatory amendment to Bob's
statement in the first paragraph of section 3.1. The second sentence
should read:

"He expressed the view that the ISONET classification was a good input
but felt that it contained too many elements, many of which were only
specific to the ISO process."

3. Review of the status of action items

Item 5.1:  ideas for using multiple classification schemes. Further
discussion of single vs multiple schemes; follow-on to action items 4.1
and 4.2 of previous meeting. Deferred in the absence of Mark Norton.

Item 5.2: input on meta-data from ebXML Registry.  Deferred in the
absence of Sally Fuger.

Item 5.3:  discussed under following agenda item

4. Further input on strawman meta-data

Bob Hager introduced proposals circulated to the exploder.  As it had
only just been possible to circulate them, the meeting should provide
only some initial off-the-cuff reactions.  Bob indicated that his
document (assigned N015) was a starting framework and much of the table
had not yet been completed.  He had listed the elements of each issue
and related these to ISO 11179-3 and Dublin Core.  In the comments
field, he had tried to capture the outstanding issues for each
attribute.

The meeting decided to run through the proposal and give some initial
reactions.

There did not seem to be a direct mapping between ISO 11179-3 and the
Dublin Core. It was not clear why this was so, but Bob would try to find
out (ACTION 6.1 Bob).  It was noted that ISONET also mapped to the
Dublin Core in some way.

As to whether the Standards Registry Committee should recommend one set
of classifications or multiple sets, Bob preferred to recommend best
practices, but to allow freedom of choice according to SDO requirements.
However the data should cite the classification scheme used.

Following were the comments made on indidividual items:

- SDO acronym.  This could confuse as sometimes the same acronym was
used for different bodies.  The question was whether to insist on both
title and acronym.  The feeling was that the full title should be
spelled out in all cases and the acronym be optional.

- Committee/sub-committee/working group.  Should be freeform without an
impose syntax to cope with different SDO structures.

- Document title.  Should be mandatory.

- Document number.  Should be optional as not all documents would have
one.

- Classification number.  The meeting continued to feel it should be up
to the SDO to define scheme, in the absence of a generally accepted
overall scheme that meets everyones' needs.

- Current Status.  This gave rise to extensive debate, since each SDO
had different processes and approval steps. It was agreed to propose
three mandatory stages in this field: In progress [ie no draft
available]; preliminary approval [ie draft available for comment]; and
final approval.  The field would be flagged with explanatory text.  A
date would be provided for each step, which would give users a clearer
idea of progress.

An additional field would be added for "publication" (which could be
some time after "final approval") with a date.

- Reference standards.  Confirmed to include normative references in
multiple, proposed to be separated by semi-colons.

- Equivalence/superceded/previous versions.  Agreed these needed
clarification.  Bob will try to fill in the definitions.

- SDO info.  It was agreed to give further consideration to the
addressing system to be used, as there were different systems such as
Vcard.  Karl informed that OASIS was developing a system also.

The meeting agreed that Bob would rapidly re-circulate a revision to
N015 based on the discussion and completing additional fields as far as
possible (ACTION 6.2 - Bob).  There would be further discussion at the
next meeting.

5 	Comments on US government GAO report on XML?
6	Robin Cover: requirements
7	IPR issues: need a better IPR statement?

These items were deferred.

8	Recruiting additional participants

The relatively poor attendance was noted.  The meeting discussed further
recruitment and re-involvement of others.  John noted that Makx Dekkers
of Dublin Core had volunteered to join, but had not made the meeting.

The meeting felt that once something tangible was available, in the form
of Bob's further developed proposal, this would encourage comment and
participation.

9	Any other business

None

10	Next meeting

Confirmed for Tuesday 21 May at the usual time.  Bob would chair in the
unavoidable absence of Karl.  CEN/ISSS would host the Conference call
and circulate the details.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best regards
John Ketchell
Director, CEN/ISSS - Information Society Standardization System

URL:http://www.cenorm.be/isss

Rue de Stassart, 36	email (direct) john.ketchell@cenorm.be
B-1050 Brussels	email (secretariat) isss@cenorm.be
Belgium	                        Tel (direct) + 32 2 550 08 46
Fax + 32 2 550 09 66	Tel (secretariat) + 32 2 550 08 13
Tel (GSM) +32 475 594 828