Re: [ubl-fssc] Formal proposal for subcommittee (fwd)

[Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@softml.net>]

<Lurker-Decloaked-Mode>

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, G. Ken Holman wrote:

>>At 2003-03-10 11:02 +0800, Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
>>>Yeah, if embracing the dark side to be a lurker is ok,
>>>please put me on the subcomm if you may.
>>
>>:{)} Lurkers who speak up too much may get tasked with work!

*Shields-Up* *Red-Alert* ....



I'm supposed to lurk but between lurking and being urged to 
speak up asap comes the following comments.  Don't worry,
I'm not going to repeat or give feedback on your comments,
just clarifying my original opinion.  Again, I do understand
that it's a matter of opinions, and you'd get the final say
as you know where you're driving the SC towards.  Just
giving you a view from someone who just read the charter
and the impression he gets.  This may be a view from the
many people whom you will approach later as well when they
take a first look at it and derive conclusions from it.



>>>Suggest adding "international" before "standardization",
>>
>>I'd like to keep the door open to any standardization organization, not
>>just international ... who knows who might get interested in this,
>>especially since we are trying to make it available world-wide?  There may
>>be a national body organization somewhere who recognizes and embraces our
>>work and offers some input.

I thought I was trying to help allay impressions about this
being a U.S.-originated SC, the word "international" would
help to emphasise the desire to have international (which
certainly includes U.S.) participation.  But I suppose it's
just phrasing.




>>>Suggest
>>>renumbering it to number 2 (please see 2 below).
>>
>>I'd like to keep the politics as number one because the rest of the world
>>works with paper and we're trying to bridge their world with UBL.  In fact,
>>our little subcommittee might end up being ambassadors of UBL as a whole in
>>that interested parties who have had decades of immersion in the paper
>>world might look to us first when considering UBL.

I understand so far that some SCs are for doing the bulk specs
work, while some are on the softer, political aspects.  I thought
FPSC would be the former actually as I thought it appeared appropriate
to address the link between UBL document specs with the available
presentation technologies, as well as paper-based presentation
details.  Maybe that's in as well but your emphasis is on the
political aspects.  That's fine.



>>>What does "technology-agnostic Formatting Specifications"
>>>mean?
>>
>>I have seen this used before and I understood when I first saw this term as
>>meaning "unbiased to any technology" ... a verbatim definition of
>>"agnostic" when used as an adjective is "uncertain of all claims to
>>knowledge" [WordNet], such that "technology-agnostic formatting
>>specifications" would be "formatting specifications written without any
>>knowledge of technological implementations thereof".
>>
>>>Suggest to use a simpler description so won't create
>>>unnecessary confusion.
>>
>>I think the term is quite suitable and conveniently succinct.

Sorry, my england not as good as yours.  I just thought simpler
words conveying the point might be better.  But again, it's just
phrasing opinion and fine if you so deem fit.




>>>"UBL documents suitable
>>>for the human reader" seems to suggest that there are UBL
>>>documents that are not suitable for the human reader.
>>>Suggest doing away with raising this question.
>>
>>I do not support this suggestion.  The UBL focus to date is
>>computer-to-computer and though it is redundant to talk of presentation in
>>that for what other reason might you want to present the information, I
>>think this phrase emphasizes the reason we exist and distinguishes our
>>efforts from the efforts of the other UBL committees.

I'm still not clear how "UBL documents suitable for the human
reader"   "emphasizes the reason we exist" and how it "distinguishes
our efforts from .. other UBL committees";  sorry, but this
particular link doesn't stand out readily to me.  But that's
just me.  I'll go along if you deem fit.




>>>Suggest
>>>shifting this to number 1 as it appears to be the bulk of
>>>work and primary purpose (correct me if I'm mistaken please).
>>
>>It isn't a "mistake" ... it is just a different preference for emphasis.  I
>>would like to emphasize the politics of liaison with the communities with
>>decades of paper-based forms experience, so as to win their support and
>>(hopefully!) contribution to our efforts.

Sure.



>>>Suggest shifting bracketed explanations to "Scope of Work"
>>>for elaborations.
>>
>>I disagree ... by prefixing this with "e.g." we are leaving our options
>>open by merely giving examples to give a reader of the essence of our
>>efforts without having to go to the list of tasks.

Just a suggestion only.  I think our intentions are the same.
I actually thought by shifting explanations to "Scope of Work" and
not stating explicitly in the space-precious charter description 
helps to leave room for further explorations.

Once you list items as charter description, and supposing half-way
through some of the items get dropped, say, due to shift in technology,
lack of manpower, etc, it would appear like the mission wasn't
accomplished (which may be explained away, but still unaccomplished).
By "burying" these e.g. items under "Scope of Work", I thought,
there's more leeway in choice of direction.  But, again, it's
just what I thought;  your kind self and others may differ.




>>Not in any way.
>>
>>>If so, we could probably
>>>state them as a targeted objective.  If not (or the sense
>>>isn't that strong as to state it as an necessary outcome),
>>>we could perhaps do away with stating "in order to test"
>>>as that can be burried under SC activities.
>>
>>Not sure what you mean here by "buried", but hopefully I have conveyed my
>>personal perspective that what is being tested is the efficacy of our
>>committee's work products.

"Buried" was just to say that the activities could be carried
out as SC activities anyway with or without "in order to test"
being stated.  But when "in order to test" is stated as a
charter description, one (or at least I) might wonder some of
those expectations that I mentioned earlier associated with
test results, test tools, etc are to be expected as outcome
of SC.  This may be just interpretation, so I'll leave it to
you.




>>>Also, I dunno if this might be important, but should there be
>>>some clarification under "Technical Liaison" perhaps on how
>>>FPSC interacts with LSC as well as with the external organisations
>>>with whom LSC happens to also interact?
>>
>>I don't think so ... again to be flexible we can leave this quite loose.

Ok, since it goes into the political arena, you might be more
familiar with the necessity or otherwise.



>>But these are only my personal perspectives on your suggestions, Chin; I
>>will await others to post their suggestions before making any changes to
>>the draft.

Thanks.  I like to say that I'm just providing opinions and
first-impression feedbacks, not necessarily asking for a change.
Such feedbacks are what I thought would be valuable to you
to go forward.  So there you go.  I'm going back to lurking.
See you on the bright side.

</Lurker-Decloaked-Mode>



cheers,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML