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] Call for Comment Package

Title: Call for Comment Package

Below is the draft text I have prepared that will constitute the body of the e-mail used to introduce our public review.  I included Karl's input (with some modifications) and added detail about the specification itself, the types of comments we are seeking, and the mechanism for providing comments.

My recommendation is that any further comments on either v3.0 or the introduction to the public review package be made by committee members by Sept 17.  In the mean time, John K. and I will continue to refine our distribution lists (we have done some of this already) and work to get the review package to all recipients by no later than Sept 30, thus allowing for a 90 day public review from Oct 1-Dec 31.  John:  I think you'll need to send me your final e-mail list so that all packages can be sent out from the same e-mail (mine), thus facilitating consistent replies. 

I believe the remaining steps for public review are as follows:

+  Post v3.0 spec to our standards registry web page for download.  I will do this today so that Francois can use the current text of the introduction and point to the spec for his JTC1 deadline.

+  Update the document register on our web page

+  I recommend we remove #2 of the Charter on our web page:  "Selection of a taxonomy that can be used to classify each SDO's specifications."  We have agreed that this is no longer one of our goals.

+  John K. and Bob H. coordinate on getting packages out to all relevant parties.

Here is my proposed introductory text:

on a Standards Metadata Specification
Comments Due by Dec 31, 2002

Dear Standards Developing Organization Representative:

We are soliciting your comments on a specification for standards metadata.  Metadata is "data about data".  The most common example of metadata is the information you would find on a library index or catalog card:  Title, Author, Publisher, etc.  In this case, it is a set of fields (elements) that can be used to describe the standards development work of a wide range of standards developing organizations.  This standards metadata specification has progressed sufficiently and therefore we are commencing with a public review.  In order to ensure widespread use of this specification, it is important that we receive input from as many different standards developing organizations as possible.

The Standards Registry Committee

This standards metadata specification was developed by the Standards Registry committee, and ad hoc group made up of a wide range of representatives from the standards community.  The Standards Registry Committee is an ad hoc committee and does not operate under the formal process of any other organization. More information about the Standards Registry Committee may be found at <http://www.ansi.org/Public/Stdsreg/stdsreg.html>, including meeting minutes, mail list archive, draft documents, and presentations.

Our goals

The primary goal of the Standards Registry Committee has been to develop a metadata specification that will promote the exchange of information between organizations developing standards and other consensus documents.  Our further goal is to make available to the pubic more coherent and systematic information about these organizations' activities.  Furthermore, this effort is intended to:

+  increase collaboration between standards developing organizations;
+  encourage the development of interoperable specifications;
+  increase participation in standards efforts; and
+  encourage adoption of completed specifications by users.

Our primary deliverable is a standards metadata specification that can be used to describe the specifications that your organization develops. Our goal is to have each SDO (standards developing organization) describe their technical work using this metadata.  These metadata descriptions can, in turn, reside on the SDO web site or in various registries that list SDO specifications.

Benefits for SDOs and Users

The benefit in using this metadata specification for your organization and other SDOs is that you can more easily discover what other organizations are working on, which will lead to an increase in cooperative efforts and a reduction of duplicate work.

The benefit to users and implementers of your specifications is that they can more easily find out what specifications are being developed by SDOs and therefore increase their involvement in standards development efforts of interest to them.  This will subsequently increase the quality and adoption of specifications.

More about the specification

To date, the standards metadata specification consists of a list of 16 fields or elements that is entitled "Standards Metadata Element Set, v3.0".  These elements are closely harmonized with the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1 (<http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/>).  More general information about the Dublin Core initiative can be found at <http://dublincore.org/>.  Each element is further described by a set of attributes (also based on Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1). 

The "Definition" and "Comment" attributes provide most of the detail regarding the intended use of each element and may also suggest usage issues that require further exploration.

This Standards Metadata Element Set, v3.0 can be downloaded at (INSERT URL).  It is available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.  In order to read PDF files, you will need to install the free Acrobat PDF Reader application available at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

Submitting your comments

We are primarily interested in learning if the Standards Metadata Element Set, v3.0 is adequate to describe your standards development work.  Specifically, it would be very helpful to know the following:

+  are there too many (or two few) elements?
+  is the definition of the elements clear?
+  what specific challenges you anticipate in the use of these elements as they are currently described?

Please submit your comments by replying to this e-mail (bhager@ansi.org <mailto:bhager@ansi.org>) on or before December 31, 2002.  As much as possible, be specific in citing which element or elements you are commenting on.

Thank you in advance for your valuable input.

The Standards Registry Committee

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC