[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [stdsreg] StdsReg meeting minutes, 9 July [N025]
Minutes of the Standards Registry committee conference call #10, 9 July 2002 [document N025] Attendence: Karl Best, Martin Bryan, François Coallier, Makx Dekkers, Em delaHostria, Bob Hager, John Ketchell (Call hosted by CEN/ISSS) 1. Introduction Roll call and welcome from Karl Best. The agenda was approved (document N024) 2. Approval of record of ninth meeting (document N023) The record was approved, noting that the heading for item 2 should refer to the eighth meeting and not the seventh as stated. 3. Review of the status of action items Action 5.2. Sally Fuger: input on metadata from ebXML Registry. This item having been on the agenda for several meetings it was agreed to drop this. 4. Review of Inter-op Summit Conference: Karl and Bob's presentation Most current StdsReg call participants (Karl, Bob, Em, Makx, François) had been present. All concerned felt positive about the presentation made by Bob and Karl. Indeed, it had been noted that the StdsReg activity was one of the few outcomes of the previous Inter-op Summit that had been positive - some action had resulted. The presentations would be placed on the StdsReg web pages. François found that the Registry had been seen as a concrete step towards inter-operability issues - in order to solve these we needed to know what the problems were. In a closing Conference panel discussion, it had been suggested that there should be future meetings on specific topics relating to interoperability issues, rather than future general Summits. For instance, OASIS and W3C were already considering such a meeting on security issues relating to web services. Em noted that maybe also specific industry issues could be discussed also. 5 (a). A home for StdsReg at an SDO? The question was discussed as to whether to adopt the specification as a deliverable of an SDO. John felt this was complex in procedural terms and may lead to "ownership" issues unless it were adopted in ISO, with a global reach. Em felt on the other hand we need a reference point that was there longer term to help a proper widespread implementation. Maybe the eBusiness MoU MG could help. Bob noted that ANSI had a Board on ICT issues (ISSB) hosted by NIST: Bob would explore the possibilities further with them. John noted that ICTSB was a similar body in Europe, and maybe a parallel publication/endorsement could be considered. On the other hand, both were informal Committees rather than bodies with formal publications as such. OASIS was another possibility. Makx thought we should encorage formal SDOs to adopt the specification, but not necessarily as a formal standard. Em noted that generally there was a perception that co-ordination of ICT standards issues needed to be improved. This presented an opportunity, since the StdsReg activity was aimed at improving such co-ordination, and provided an example. This was being currently discussed in the US in a meeting organized by NIST. Regarding ISO, this could be given to a TC, eg TC46, but some meeting participants felt there would be problems with getting acceptance of our specification as a work item. The PAS process was an alternative, but needed some other body to adopt the specification before submitting it to ISO. A fast-track process would also need prior approval by one or more national bodies. Karl proposed the members circulate their "pros and cons" list of specific organizations that might host the specification. Criteria - publication capability, revisibility, "permanent" availability, etc. John agreed to provide an initial proposal for comment by other members (ACTION 10/1). (b) Approval process, incl. possible public review period Bob noted the need to contact the bodies on the CEN/ISSS and ANSI lists of possibly relevant standards consortia and organizations, to ask them for comments. John would send Bob any available updated information from the CEN list. Diffuse and the Schemas project were other possible sources of consortia. On review and approval, we needed to decide when we had a "final" pre-approval text, how to manage the comment and approval process, etc. Karl suggested members submit ideas regarding the requirements for the approval process on the e-mail list (ACTION 10/2) (c) Promoting implementation of the spec upon completion This was agreed to be crucial and would affect the decision under (a) (d) A new host for the web pages and mail list OASIS is not able to continue this hosting capability. Bob indicated that he was prepared for ANSI to assume the hosting for the time being; this was welcomed by the participants. 6. Technical discussion: metadata Bob noted that at the Interop Summit there had been a suggestion that there be "sample implementations" of the registry, but exactly what this meant was not clear. It was agreed not to pursue it. Following previous discussions, Bob noted that there were still a few unresolved issues. Makx noted that subjects such as lists and vocabularies were relevant; which were the classification systems that would be used in the specification? BoB noted that it had been previously proposed to allow SDOs flexibility in which system they used, but this might need further attention in the implementation context. Bob noted Martin had questions concerning multiple definitions from different organizations, and how to ensure consistency of the data in such cases? Martin agreed to provide a clarification of this question to the list. Concerning the proposed addition of the date of the most recent change to meta-data, it was agreed this date related to the content of the meta-data document, and was therefore potentially a more frequently updated field than the date of the changes to the data on the subject standard itself, for instance in the case of error correction. Bob would try to include as much as he could and re-post a new version along with a new list of outstanding issues. He would be obtaining some further inputs from a current DISA project that might be of relevance. 7. Any other business None 8. Next meeting This was agreed for August 6 at the usual time (noon ET). ANSI would host the call. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC