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

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

John:

> What would actually be far preferable to us is a much wider
> agenda:  that we seek to create an  "Association of Standards
> Consortia" (with formal SDOs as associates).  This could promote
> information exchange, help desk function, and best practice for this
> and a number of other issues (eg a best practice for consortia IPR
> policies!), provide a portal and (ultimately) encourage efforts at
> collaboration to ensure inter-operability. This is an idea we
> have floated from time to time with different people;  of course it
> would need a resource commitment to create it, but, if we can
> develop a worthwhile contact base, it might be a good idea to test
> the waters and see whether enough people out there are interested.
> Then I think we would need a not-for-profit Association to be
formed:
> this can be done relatively easily even for very small activities in
> many countries, though obviously the scope and size of the operation
> would depend on what people are prepared to buy into.

Oh, the uber-organization idea :-) Actually, I like this idea a lot,
and have been thinking about it quite a bit the last several months.
My original thinking last fall when we started the StdsReg effort was
that this could become (or belongs in) some sort of uber-organization.

But I see a couple of problems: First, the funding, as you have
pointed out. Second, and more important, is the authority. If this was
merely a coordinative body then how useful would it be? At some point
its mission would be hampered by lack of authority over other SDOs.
And I can say for certain that there are very few SDOs in the world
right now who would voluntarily give up any of their soverignty to
join an uber-organization.

But despite these objections I still think that this is an interesting
idea that could be pursued. I would be (personally) interested in
being involved somehow.


</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: Ketchell John [mailto:john.ketchell@cenorm.be]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:48 AM
> To: 'Standards Registry Mail List'
> Cc: Bob Feghali
> Subject: RE: [stdsreg] some thoughts on the future
> direction of StdsReg
>
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> Thank you for starting this debate.
>
> First, I would agree we should send the draft (though
> essentially on more or
> less a "cold call" basis) for comment to all the SDOs we
> can find, whether
> ICT consortia or other.  As regards the contacts, I agree
> this is difficult,
> though not impossible - our original consortia list five
> years ago was drawn
> up in consultation with the organizations, though I suspect
> the contact
> information thus obtained is pretty badly outdated (I can
> try to check this
> on Thursday when our responsible person re-appears).  As
> Karl says, we MIGHT
> be able to provide updated contact details for many
> organizations if we
> split the task:  if all else fails, usually there is some
> kind of anonymous
> organizational contact on the web sites anyway.
>
> As part of the comment process, we should also elicit
> information on the
> likely extent of buy-in to using the end product.  The
> smaller organizations
> may be more easily able to adapt and use it - eg I have no
> problem to
> implement it for our CEN/ISSS Workshop activities, where we
> have control
> over how the work programme is presented and we can manage
> it, but for CEN
> to implement it for all its thousands of work items would
> be extremely
> difficult to say the least, especially given investments in
> and process for
> managing data-base technologies.  What we need is enough users to
> demonstrate it by example, even on a trial basis.
>
> I am not so keen on the formal adoption of the spec. by a
> particular SDO
> (which?).  Maybe the resulting connotations of "ownership"
> might even put
> some people off? Also, I wonder whether we need any IP
> protection - I would
> see this as a kind of "public good".
>
> What would actually be far preferable to us is a much wider
> agenda:  that we
> seek to create an  "Association of Standards Consortia"
> (with formal SDOs as
> associates).  This could promote information exchange, help
> desk function,
> and best practice for this and a number of other issues (eg
> a best practice
> for consortia IPR policies!), provide a portal and
> (ultimately) encourage
> efforts at collaboration to ensure inter-operability. This
> is an idea we
> have floated from time to time with different people;  of
> course it would
> need a resource commitment to create it, but, if we can
> develop a worthwhile
> contact base, it might be a good idea to test the waters
> and see whether
> enough people out there are interested.  Then I think we
> would need a
> not-for-profit Association to be formed:  this can be done
> relatively easily
> even for very small activities in many countries, though
> obviously the scope
> and size of the operation would depend on what people are
> prepared to buy
> into.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hager [mailto:BHager@ansi.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 22:19
> To: 'Standards Registry Mail List'
> Cc: Bob Feghali
> Subject: RE: [stdsreg] some thoughts on the future
> direction of StdsReg
>
>
> Thanks for this, Karl.
>
> With regard to identifying SDOs, we have been working on
> developing a
> comprehensive SDOs database for the NSSN which could be a
> great starting
> point for the comprehensive list of SDOs.  This takes into
> account the
> CEN/ISS list and others.  As Em pointed out at the Interop
> Summit, we need
> to get to the middle level people - the ones who deal with
> the metadata on a
> day-to-day basis.  It's still on my list to give a status
> report to ANSI
> SDOs via our Organization Member Council and other ANSI
> governance bodies.
>
> Regarding ANSI hosting the StndsReg site, I've spoken to
> our IT Director and
> I'll soon get your IT people in touch with ours to work on
> the details.
>
> Regards,
> Bob H.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 9:08 AM
> To: stdsreg
> Subject: [stdsreg] some thoughts on the future direction of StdsReg
>
>
> For the past couple of days I've been at the Interoperability Summit
> in Orlando, where I presented, together with Bob Hager, the
> status of
> the StdsReg project. I also had the chance to chat with Makx Dekkers
> and Em delaHostria, a couple of our StdsReg participants who were in
> attendence.
>
> After these chats and further thinking prompted by some of the
> discussions and presentations at the meeting, I've been
> trying to come
> up with some ideas regarding our future direction. We're nearing
> completion of the StdsReg metadata spec (many thanks to
> Bob, Makx, and
> others who have contributed technically), and should start thinking
> about where we're going from here.
>
> (I'm sending these ideas out via this email list to prompt some
> discussion; our meeting attendence has been dropping, and
> I'd like to
> get some input from those of you on the list who haven't
> been able to
> attend lately. Please consider this an invitation to respond to and
> discuss these topics.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> (Note that because StdsReg is not an OASIS TC and therefore not
> covered by the OASIS IP policy I have been asked by my Board to move
> the StdsReg web page and email list off the OASIS servers. ANSI has
> been kind enough to offer to take their turn at this
> hosting; we will
> make the move very soon. I'll discuss this further on the next
> concall.)
>
> I've suggested these items for discussion in hopes of getting some
> feedback from those of you interested in the future
> direction of this
> effort. I'm got my own feelings on some of these, but would
> prefer to
> get your ideas so that we can all together make some of these
> important decisions.
>
> Please respond!
>
> </karl>
> =================================================================
> Karl F. Best
> OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
> +1 978.667.5115 x206
> karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The archive of this mail list is available at
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/stdsreg/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The archive of this mail list is available at
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/stdsreg/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The archive of this mail list is available at
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/stdsreg/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>