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

[Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>]

Will do. Makx.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 02 July 2002 15:41
> To: Makx Dekkers; stdsreg
> Subject: RE: [stdsreg] some thoughts on the future direction of StdsReg
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>