Re: [tm-pubsubj] teleconferences, Committee Plans, etc.

[Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>]

>* Mary Nishikawa
>| I think that we should make one
>| TC with subcommittess, draft a new charter, and send out a call for
>| participation.

*Lars Marius Garshol
>The trouble is that we can't do that, however much we may want to:
>   <URL: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#charter >
>
>A TC is not allowed to change its charter.

*Mary
Yes, we are allowed to make a clarification, but not expand deliverables, 
which would have to happen if we merged the committees.

I didn't completely explain myself. I am proposing to retire the three 
committees and create a new one with a new charter, possibly a new name. I 
am throwing this out on the table for discussion. This would be work, but 
it may be worth it in the end.

I am suggesting this because  I think it is hard for the three TCs to 
operate under the OASIS process, since we would be required to attend many 
more meetings.  For GeoLang, the official meetings were only FTF (IRC 
meetings don't count officially, but maybe we can get this changed. XMLvoc 
might have been in the same shape, but I really haven't follow the 
activities much. There seems to be a preliminary deliverable, but I don't 
seem to find it on the OASIS site. I think their meetings were only FTF 
too, as far as I can remember. The only meeting I attended for XMLvoc was 
Montreal 2002 and XML Europe 2003 so this would be the same for GeoLang. 
There were meetings at XML 2003 USA, I think. I would not be able to 
participate in the future FTF meetings, and hence, I would probably resign. 
I don't think that only IRC meeting attendance would account for much, for 
me anyway.  After the teleconferences were discontinued,  less work seemed 
to have been done, and by fewer people, but this may only be my 
observation. You can have a committee with 3-4 people and all of the work 
can be done as a FTF. This is possible. I will then find other ways to 
participate in the standards work. In that case you will always have a quorum :)

This is the current charter for TM Published Subjects. Is this what we are 
working towards now? Remember, GeoLang and XMLVoc were not around at the 
time of this writing either:

The charter for this TC is as follows.

Name

OASIS Topic Maps Published Subjects Technical Committee

Statement of Purpose

This Technical Committee is set forth to promote the use of Published 
Subjects [1] by specifying recommendations, requirements and best 
practices, for their definition, management and application.

This includes recommendations and requirements for:

1. Definition of Published Subjects
2. Format/Syntax/Notation/Grammar
Domain Identification
Support for Communication Across Natural Language Barriers
Defining the Mediation Between Different Community Ontologies or Namespaces
Documentation
Management of Published Subjects
Registration/Repository and Online Publication Process
Organizational Liason (e.g., liaison with ISO 3166 maintainer, FAO 
authority, etc.)
Update Frequency (e.g., how often the topic maps are updated)
Registration Authority
Application of Published Subjects
Examples Indicating Correct Usage
Use of Published Subjects to Mediate Between Ontologies

The TC will produce three Technical Reports, each focused upon one of the 
areas above. Applications include, but are not limited to the Semantic Web, 
Distributed Ontologies, Unified Classification Systems, Business Processes, 
Workflow, Search and Retrieval Tools, Knowledge Management, Diplomatic 
Communication, Cultural Dialogue, and various other disciplines and functions.

List of Deliverables

Published Subjects TC Requirements Document (Nov 2001)

Recommendations, Requirements and Best Practices for the Definition of 
Published Subjects (Mar 2001)
Recommendations, Requirements and Best Practices for the Management of 
Published Subjects (May 2002)
Recommendations, Requirements and Best Practices for the Usage of Published 
Subjects (Aug 2002)

*Mary
I think that we covered 1. and 2, and did not really produce a complete 
first deliverable after the requirements document.
Are we really doing all of the above? Has this been really looked at? I 
believe that this was created in Montreal  August 2001 and the committee 
begun a little while after that. Quite a while ago. I think that we need to 
update this for our own sake.

Cheers,
Mary