Notes following UOML-X TC conference call today

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

Just a few of my comments following the TC call today
regarding the UOML ISO JTC1/SC34 submission

1)

It may be that national bodies have not received all the
information they need to understand UOML. It may be
that the information has not reached those considering
UOML within the respective national body groups.

There are some things we could send to national bodies
and to those considering UOML on behalf of national
bodies

- some links we could send are:

UOML ISO Submission Package
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34870/oasis-uoml-jtc1-submit.zip

UOML FAQ
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uoml-x/faq.php

Link to UOML.org site
http://www.uoml.org/

Plus maybe they need an explanation that the UOML
spec may not contain all of the information needed to
implement UOML, e.g. to implement a docbase which
can 'speak' UOML and that some of the information
people need to implement a docbase, say, can be found
in patents ... (and maybe list which patents have which
information topics).

2)

It is debatable whether a standards spec must contain
enough information to implement the standard: Maybe
a position on this (and opinion) from the TC could be
stated.

3)

There may be a shortage of information about UOML in
the english language so in the future UOML could be
helped with the publishing of conference papers, etc in
english. The english needs to be clear and good quality
becuase it needs to be read by people whose first
language is not english.

4)

We should note that the time taken before a national
body receives information from SC34 and the time it
takes to set up an ad hoc group to study UOML means
that they may only have January to consider UOML.
So any information and help we can send them needs
to be as soon as possible and we may get questions
mainly during January about UOML. We need to answer
the questions quickly (within days or a week) so that
national bodies still have time to consider our answers.

5)

I think those people involved in national bodies and
SC34 who deal with SC34 submissions may be more
knowledgable about document formats - the main
business of SC34, I think - and maybe not so much
knowledgable about document processing technologies.
We should bear this in mind when looking at comments
and responding to questions and when emailing anyone
from national bodies. It should be emphasised that UOML
is NOT a document format; it is for document processing.


Best regards and best wishes and good luck in 2010

Steve
---
Stephen D Green