OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

stdsreg message

[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