RE: [stdsreg] some thoughts on the future direction of StdsReg

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

Makx:

> If there is a best candidate for maintaining this, I think
> it would be ISO TC46, and specifically SC9:
> http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/tc/tclist/Technica
lCommitteeDetail
Page.TechnicalCommitteeDetail?COMMID=1797
> I know the chair of the group very well, and could contact
> her to see if this is an option. The specification could
> first be processed as an ANSI national standard and then
> move to ISO for fast-tracking.

If you could look into this, just so that we have something to
consider, I would appreciate it.

</karl>
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
+1 978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Makx Dekkers [mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:19 AM
> To: Karl F. Best; stdsreg
> Subject: RE: [stdsreg] some thoughts on the future
> direction of StdsReg
>
>
>
> Karl,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> >
> > I propose that as soon as we have a final draft we feel
> comfortable
> > with that we send it out for public review. The goal of
> the review is
> > to find out if the spec will adequately describe the work of SDOs.
> > Therefore, the audience for this review is SDOs, and not
> vendors. As
> > such, we need to compile a list of SDOs and contact
> information for
> > the appropriate person at each SDO. I will need help from
> all of you
> > in compiling this list. I'm aware of a couple lists of
> SDOs (e.g. at
> > CEN/ISSS) but don't know of any that include contact information.
> >
>
> One source for contact information is a standards framework
> report that I did for the SCHEMAS project. A list of standards
> and related activities in the metadata area can be found at
> http://www.schemas-forum.org/stds-framework/second/section5.html,
> where also contact information is specified.
>
> Of course (speaking for Martin Bryan), the fora list of Diffuse
> is an excellent source: http://www.diffuse.org/fora.html
>
> > After sending out the spec for review, getting feedback,
> evaulating
> > this feedback and using it to improve the spec, then giving final
> > approval to the spec by this committee, we will still
> have two tasks
> > ahead of us: first, promoting the adoption of the spec,
> and second,
> > (optionally) seeking to have the spec approved by some SDO.
> >
> > For the first, how do we promote the adoption of the spec by
> > organizations that currently, or could potentially in the
> future, list
> > standards information? We already have interested organizations
> > represented within our commmittee (ANSI, CEN, OASIS, Diffuse) that
> > have committed to or will probably implement the spec. How do we
> > promote its use at other organizations?
>
> I think that providing examples of real standards that are
> described using the spec would help. Maybe Bob would want
> to create a couple of descriptions? I would be prepared to
> look with my colleagues at DCMI at describing the Dublin
> Core specifications using the spec.
> >
> > And for the second, do we see the need for approval of
> the spec by an
> > SDO? I suspect that this would be useful in driving the
> adoption of
> > the spec, but which SDO should we submit to?
>
> Not sure about this one. In a way, the spec now looks a
> lot like what we call an Application Profile of Dublin
> Core - is this something that ANSI (or maybe ISO TC46)
> would be willing to take on?
>
> > Related to that is the standing of our currently ad hoc committee.
> > Should this committee seek to become part of an SDO, or
> are we happy
> > remaining independent, with our own process and with no
> IP protection?
> > I have resisted suggestions coming from within my own organization
> > that StdsReg should become an OASIS technical committee
> on the grounds
> > that that would require you all to join OASIS in order to
> participate.
> > Is there an organization that we could (or should!) belong to that
> > would allow open participation, provide us with IP protection, and
> > provide a path for approval of the spec by some (de juere?) SDO?
>
> I wouldn't mind us continuing as an independent, cross-SDO
> committee, and indeed requiring us to become a member of
> OASIS would not be my preference.
>
> If there is a best candidate for maintaining this, I think
> it would be ISO TC46, and specifically SC9:
> http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/tc/tclist/Technica
lCommitteeDetail
Page.TechnicalCommitteeDetail?COMMID=1797
I know the chair of the group very well, and could contact
her to see if this is an option. The specification could
first be processed as an ANSI national standard and then
move to ISO for fast-tracking.

Makx.