| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [humanmarkup] March TC Meeting Minutes
- From: Rex Brooks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:33:17 -0800
Title: March TC Meeting Minutes
Here are the minutes of our montly meeting Wednesday, March 20,
2002 at 12:00pm noon. Please read them and if there are errors, please
Here are the TC Minutes, which I will link to this post Sunday, March
24, 2002 with the first formal Working Draft of HM.Requirements and
some other updates to the TC website.
March 20, 2002
Teleconference meeting of the OASIS HumanMarkup Technical
USA Toll Free Number: 888-989-7535
USA Toll Number: +1-712-271-3822
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
Manos Batsis by Proxy
Sylvia Candlearia de Ram
Minutes taken by TC Secretary Rex Brooks
Meeting convened12:10 p.m. Eastern Time
This meeting was a bit longer than usual.
This meeting was devoted almost entirely to discussion of our first
formal Working Draft of the key document, HM.Requirements.
In a recorded conversation earlier in the day, Manos Batsis suggested
that we use an IETF reference document for standard definitions of the
operational terms MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, etc. That
reference url is:
It was decided to do this in the Working Draft and send a copy of the
document to OASIS along with a request for a policy statement
regarding this practice, a request for advice on whether this TC ought
to include any mention IPR policy and several other questions which
came up in the meeting and which will be noted in the course of these
A second suggestion preceded our item by item review of the latest
discussion of the Requirements captured in the Straw Man Draft posted
on the TC and public mailing list by Rex Brooks following our March 15
deadline for submissions. This suggestion was presented to the list by
Dr. Sylvia Candelaria de Ram. Her message said the Primary Base Human
Markup Language Schema should include Elements and Attributes to
enable Cultural Schemata as a consistent principle "...in aid of
fomenting accurate communication, for which CULTURAL characterizations
will be included, at an abstract level in Primary and more
concretely in Secondary Schemas. "
When requested for a distilled statement on this, Len Bullard
suggested phrasing such as "(HumanML) shall include structures to
describe cultural modules."
This was agreed. (Please note that the specific wording which needs to
be consistent throughout the Requirements Document will be crafted to
that purpose and, with the Document as a whole, requires full TC
We then moved on to an item-by-item review of the Requirements as
currently collected in the Straw Man Draft.
(Note: Although it was not mentioned, the Secretary is making the
assumption explicit here that all references temporizing the current
status of the document as non-normative will be eliminated in the
Working Draft. Also, if not specifically mentioned, section contents
were not discussed and so will not be changed.)
The ABSTRACT section was note discussed.
The DOCUMENT STATUS section will, be default, become normative.
In the TERMINOLOGY section:
We discussed the differences between "Human" with an initial
Capital 'H' and "human" with an inital lower case "h."
(For the sake of consistency in use in HM.Requirements, the 'Human'
version will be HUMAN, and the 'human' version will be "human"
in the document.)
It is suggested that readers refer to the actual document for the
current definitions, since a review of the the complete discussion
would make these minutes somewhat excessive.
It was decided that the terms DEVELOPER, USER and AGENT would be added
to the list of HM.Requirements-specific terms in HM.Requirements.
In the CLASSIFICATION section:
It was decided not to mention data layers or related concepts covered
in the specifications on which HumanML is based.
In the EXISTING STANDARDS section:
It was decided to explictly state which languages and/or schemata upon
which HumanML will be be based and/or with which HumanML will be
compliant. These are XML and XML Schema for the former and RDF and RDF
Schema for the latter.
It was decided not to state criteria for which languages and/or
schemata HumanML will be compliant.
In the REQUIREMENTS section:
It was decided to ask OASIS if this TC needs or is allowed to make
explicit statements about policy with regard to 'openness,'
'public v. publicly available,' etc. It was decided to include these
questions in the letter accompanying the HM.Requirements Working Draft
submitted to OASIS, while deleting mention of this in the Working
Draft of HM.Requirements.
In the COMPATIBILITY section:
It was decided that the basic provision that HumanML conform to XML
Syntax and Rules remains unchanged.
It was decided to include the minimum explanation for this
Requirement, consisting of the statement that XML provides standard
syntax [enabling (practical) universal acceptance and
In the EXTENSIBILITY section:
It was decided that the Primary Base Human Markup Language Schema will
have a specific mechanism described in HM.Requirements for adding
Elements and Attributes after the initial schema is produced and
approved. This provision was decided on the basis that all HumanML
work MUST be extensible.
It was decided that Secondary Human Markup Language Schemata MUST be
extensible. It was decided not to add further conditions to this
It was decided to delete the INTERNATIONALIZATION section.
It was decided to delete the MULTIPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS section.
(Note: A great deal of discussion is not mentioned in these minutes
because the discussion can be summarized in most cases by saying that
we decided to make our requirements as minimal as we can in order to
allow usage to determine what needs to be added or deleted and what,
if any additional stipulations need to be made. To a lesser extent,
much discussion boiled down to deciding against including language
that would inevitably lead to differing interpretations, the debate,
discussion and disputation of which is inadvisable except where
unavoidable at this stage of our work.)
The meeting was then adjourned, with the next meeting scheduled
for April 17, 2002 at 12:00 Noon EST.
Following is the transcript of the chat between Manos Batsis and Rex
rexbroo: Good Morning Manos--at least morning my time.
xcircuit: Hey Rex, goodmorning
xcircuit: it's afternoon here
rexbroo: How are you doing?
xcircuit: fine, fine, u?
rexbroo: ok, no news is good news, as they say.
rexbroo: How are things going in the rdf world?
xcircuit: yup i know what u mean...lol
xcircuit: m studying the requierments published by the W3C webont
rexbroo: Ahhhh, I remember Ontologies. Wrote about 169 pages' worth a
while back. Exhausting Subject.
xcircuit: members of other WGs have shared the fact that there's just
too much croud in webont
xcircuit: they are expected to provide a common ontology for web
rexbroo: I came to the conclusion that the best publicly published one
I could find was the DARPA DAML set.
rexbroo: But Requirements is the maic word today, for me for the next
xcircuit: thats their base; RDF(S) + DAML +OIL
xcircuit: i've been watching the req doc development
rexbroo: Makes sense to me, but then I always agree with people who
agree with me
xcircuit: IMHO, we should derecate the section where we define
rexbroo: I was glad to see Sylvia pointing out the necessity for
including cultural requirements.
xcircuit: must may should bla etc
xcircuit: with a plain reference to RFC 2119
xcircuit: ie http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
xcircuit: it a common practice these days
rexbroo: I will pass it along if you can't chime in on the meeting
xcircuit: what time is the meeting?
xcircuit: i'll be around but for 1.5 hour
rexbroo: 12 pm EST or 8 pm, I believe your time. Or is it 9 pm?
rexbroo: That's what I thought, so I will include this conversation as
part of the minutes, if that is all right with you?
xcircuit: of course
xcircuit: about that "schema independent" thingy in the
xcircuit: i meant shema language independent
rexbroo: Cool. You have alread simplified the Requirements greatly. I
was not aware of the reference. It will make standardization
xcircuit: meaning you can do
more or less the same with RELAX NG and XML Schema for example
rexbroo: Wow, that makes all the difference. I didn't understand
rexbroo: That, I have no objection against. I was getting freaked by
vague references to "abstract data layers."
xcircuit: let me go through the text one time i might be able to spot
anything where i can help
xcircuit: yeah terminology is a dangerous thing these days
rexbroo: I would appreciate it. Having two TCs doing this exercise at
once is very instructive, but wearing me down.
xcircuit: there are two req documents?
rexbroo: It is pushing me toward writing an article on the process,
which is very important but critically different between HumanMarkup
which is huge in scope and WSIA which is narrowed down to web services
for interactive applications.
rexbroo: Two TCs, Web Services for Interactive Applications, which I
joined when it started in January and HumanMarkup, which you know
rexbroo: In WSIA, I am just another member, not an officer.
xcircuit: WSIA and HumanMarkup = information exchange and information
xcircuit: two different parts of the same pazzle that is
rexbroo: I joined to be liaison so I could make sure our spec works in
that environment and to gather requirements from those folks--all big
application vendors, multinationals, France Telecom, IBM, H-P, Fujitsu
rexbroo: It also gives me a builti-in audience for promoting HumanML
for actual use.
xcircuit: yeah i know. is there any collaboration with the w3c WS
rexbroo: Not yet. It hasn't been suggested and I won't until after the
Requirements Doc. is finished at the next f2f mtgs in mid April.
xcircuit: i doupt it will ever will sugested.
rexbroo: I'm gonna write this article, in which I will suggest not
just that, but a group composed of members from ISO, W3C, Web 3D and a
few other Consortia, like HR-XML, to be liaison between these
rexbroo: Might as well get as much mileage out of this Requirements
stuff while I am at it.
xcircuit: you may be interested in NIST, latelly they appear to be
very active on XML related specs and test suites.
rexbroo: Yeah, I'm particularly well-connected at NIST. In fact, they
are the ones who provide for our conference calls. I plan to ask them
to expand it for including the whole planet, not just US for the
xcircuit: that would be cool. of course, it's time for us to deliver
rexbroo: Well, we are slowly getting there.
xcircuit: Rex you know my interests in the HumanMarkup domain are
totally different than the current work; that's the reason i dont
rexbroo: A collaborative workspace would help a lot. That is still on
rexbroo: Yeah, I know. I'm hopoing that as we move on to writing
Schemata, you'll find an avenue to do the work you want done.
rexbroo: The RDF Schema is always on my mind.
xcircuit: yeah RDFS is tottaly different... it's like OO modeling
rexbroo: But there's only one of me, and I can only do so much and
with just you and me for this and me and Sudhakar for the Physical
Description stuff, I get stretched.
xcircuit: participation is low... perhaps we need to push our
interests outwards through synergy
rexbroo: For the moment my timeline is to get Requirements out of the
way in the next couple of weeks, get started on the forma XML Schema,
and then move my focus to RDF.
xcircuit: you for example seem to be doing just fine on this
rexbroo: I'm going to find someone else to do the basic Physical
rexbroo: If you can find the right mix in amongst the Topic Maps mix,
that would help, but that is such a large arena, narrowing down the
focus and finding the right people can't be easy.
xcircuit: if you mean the schema work, i can help; it should be a
piece of cake (although i hate the subject lol)
rexbroo: That would help. But to be honest you are more valuable doing
what you do best--the rdfs.
xcircuit: at the moment i dont do anything at all...
rexbroo: And double checking the stuff that is done for the basic
schema, of course.
rexbroo: I thought you were
exploring the topic maps arena, but since OASIS is taking its time to
set up the Member's Section for that whole conglomeration, it doesn't
make sense to push much. However, I monitor their mailing list and
they are moving, too, though slowly like all of us.
xcircuit: although a much appealing technology, i wonder what the real
target group behind it is.
xcircuit: around here for example, if I talk for XTM they wouldn't
know what i'm talking about, nor dream about adopting the format for
rexbroo: They have a checkered history, if you are aware of it, so
there are some very well-developed interests, a lot of academics from
the librarianship crowd, and knowledge/information base folks for god
rexbroo: good measure sheesh!
xcircuit: plain TM yes... but using XML as a text representation is
rexbroo: They have a lot of built-in and historical conflicts, but
they seem to have buried their hatchets for the most part.
rexbroo: Topic Maps and Ontologies are what will make the Semantic Web
a reality, if it ever gets that far.
xcircuit: if.. lol
rexbroo: And we need to be connected from the start.
xcircuit: even if SW actually becomes mainstream tech in the next 2
years, most wont know what to do with it
xcircuit: or should i replace 2 with 10
rexbroo: I believe they will get it together, but to be honest I think
they should unbury their hatchets and have an old fashioned barroom
fight, get it over and done with and then take it from there.
xcircuit: yup. especially IBM, SUN and Microsoft...
rexbroo: With Oracle, too.
rexbroo: Sun is a real disappointment for me
xcircuit: as far as consortia goes, the oposites r w3c <> OASIS
which actually is sun <> IBM
xcircuit: or thats what they tell me
xcircuit: microsoft doesn't care anyway
rexbroo: IBM seems to have its head on straight, even if I don't agree
with all of their decisions, but Sun and Microsoft just haven't
finished bloodying each yet.
xcircuit: they both sit in fron of a TOBE major market
rexbroo: Microsoft is sitting on the edge of a cliff and they just
barely perceive it.
xcircuit: it will probably end up as in the past with the baby
rexbroo: Their income model is totally broken, and their stupid
insistence on trying to be a mnopoly on all computing is just too
stupid. Everyone has wised up now and simply won't buy into it. But
still they try to go and OWN Web Services like we are all so dumb we
don't know what they are trying to do. Go figure.
xcircuit: can you believe they thought we where going to use
rexbroo: Unfortunately one of those Baby Bells, SBC, is gbrowing up
into another octopus setting out to strangle the telephony market and
then spread out into wireless.
xcircuit: so? NTT Docomo will ensure there wont be a monopoly as far
as the global status goes
rexbroo: Oh yeah, here you go Mincrosoft, sign me right up. And here's
my first born.
rexbroo: Yeah, thanks be.
xcircuit: lets change the subject, it's ridiculus and irritating
xcircuit: i dont believe our civilisation made it into such lock
rexbroo: SBC bought Pacific Bell, my local Baby Bell, and has driven
it into the ground. I really hate em.
rexbroo: Yeah, I've been thinking about that a lot lately. I expect it
was a momentary aberration. At least I'm hoping.
rexbroo: A lot of timing.
xcircuit: after almost 23 years of life, i have realised that the best
thing i can do is end up with a house in the country where i'll be
able to grow chickens and fish in the nearby river (if not
rexbroo: I think, hope, that in a few years we will all look back at
this little era and realize that it was all just a shakeout as th
human race discovered it didn't actually have to assume a world
economy based on scarcity after all.
xcircuit: thats the best quality of life one can achieve today
xcircuit: sorry Rex, i doupt it. we're too absorbed in every day stuff
and terms like cost, profit bla
xcircuit: hence, no real evolution
rexbroo: blah blah blah, yeah, I know.
rexbroo: But, I have to hope, otherwise I'd get more depressed, and
then I'd forget to go hiking and notice what a beautiful world it can
xcircuit: yup it can
rexbroo: I happen to like chicken and eggs and fish, and olives, so
maybe getting out into the country or somewhere more rural is the best
I can hope for.
rexbroo: I've heard Greece is nice like that.
rexbroo: I have a friend, who believe it or not, and I'd rather not,
wants to retrace Alexander's journeys on foot and horseback in the
Olympic year, and I've said I might help out, but I damn sure ain't
going to Afghanistan with him.
rexbroo: But I might try to visit you.
xcircuit: on foot... wow
rexbroo: He's nuts, but my kind of nuts.
xcircuit: some people are so much different than others
rexbroo: He wants to write a book about it, and film it, and check on
some theories about logistics in the Hellenic era.
rexbroo: Me, I want to see the Acropolis.
xcircuit: you'll like it
rexbroo: And Thermopylae.
xcircuit: never been there
rexbroo: THE turning point of history? Tsk Tsk.
xcircuit: lol... BUT, i grew in sparta, city of Leonidas and the rest
of the 300 heroes
rexbroo: I grew up in the edges of an oil field in southern
california, but spent a lot of time at the beaches when they were
incredibly beautiful. Weird cross images, eh?
xcircuit: yeah i know what you mean. Although i appreciate a picture
in it's beauty, i wonder how much our senses have trapped us in our
perseption of the world.
xcircuit: dont mind my spelling.. i dont
rexbroo: Doesn't bother me. I have to go now. Work calls, and prep for
the meeting. Talk to you soon.
xcircuit: see you around Rex.
rexbroo: Take Care.
xcircuit: u too.
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC