[dsdl-discuss] Re: Contradiction of ISO standards

At 2007-02-03 09:35 +0000, Francis Cave wrote:
>Overlapping functionality may or may not amount to a "contradiction" - in my
>opinion the JTC 1 Directives are unclear on this point.

Agreed.

>The question remains: is the intention of JTC 1 to deter the development of
>overlapping standards or simply to prevent an overlapping standard from
>being processed on the fast track?

I think it is the latter. I've been seeing this as a question of
process. If the internal development process of a committee
identifies a requirement that is met by collaboratively producing a
specification within due process, then there are plenty of
opportunities by stakeholders to participate in that due process and
produce an end result that everyone agrees upon.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org
> > [mailto:dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org]On Behalf Of Rick Jelliffe
> > Sent: 03 February 2007 02:55
> > To: dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org
> > Subject: [dsdl-discuss] Contradiction of ISO standards
> >...>
> > I have been making the general argument in my blog and in private
> > correspondence with Patrick Durusau that because ISO has not seen any
> > contradiction in having RELAX NG, even though it competes with W3C XSD,
> > then mere overlap of functionality is not enough for contradiction.

I disagree. DSDL was developed within due process based on
agreed-upon user requirements and stakeholders (P-members) have had
plenty of opportunities to influence and support its
development. DSDL came about according to established JTC 1
procedures designed to be used in this way.

> > However, there is a more fundamental aspect that I (and other writers)
> > have missed: the JTC1 requirement against contradiction is limited to
> > contradiction with other ISO/IEC standards only. A recommendation from
> > W3C, Ecma or OASIS is irrelevant. Anyone see something I cannot see?

Directives section 13.4 is about a fast track submission
fast-tracking due process and therefore I read "contradiction" in
regard only to parachuting in an outside technology imposing on
existing standardization ... this directive states "During the 30-day
review period, an NB may identify to the JTC 1 Secretariat any
perceived contradiction with other JTC 1, ISO or IEC standards."

Each ISO specification has a maintenance process defined for it and
due process dictates how identified user requirements are
incorporated as part of the maintenance cycle.

The opportunity for a fast track submission is the opportunity to
introduce a new JTC 1 standard in lieu of due process. Contradiction
is there to protect due process from being averted unexpectedly or
without the agreement of stakeholders. I believe there is
contradiction when established due process already provides the
mechanisms by which user requirements can be met.

It is up to P-members to decide if due process is to be used to
maintain an existing XML vocabulary for office documents, or if
P-members agree to set aside due process in this case in order to
introduce an outside specification as a new JTC 1 standard that has
overlap with the existing XML vocabulary for office documents.

I see the question of contradiction as a question of which JTC 1
procedures to follow, not a question of which technology to
choose. So many of the discussions related to this situation have
been very far off this mark.

I hope this perspective is considered helpful.

. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
RSS feeds:     publicly-available developer resources and training
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/m/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/m/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)