[dsdl-discuss] Re: Synchronization of the OASISRELAXNGCompactSyntax and the ISO/IEC19757-2 AMENDMENT 1: Compact Syntax

Well said, Ken! I would expect ALL National Bodies at the SC34 Plenary to
OPPOSE any proposals for action by SC34 that are contrary to the JTC1
Directives and any procedures/mechanisms that have been established by JTC1
in accordance with the Directives. If any National Body has concerns about
the Directives, as Murata-san has already said, this is a matter to be taken
up with JTC1 directly, through their proper national standardisation body
channels, and not waste SC34 Plenary time with it!

Francis Cave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org
> [mailto:dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org]On Behalf Of G. Ken Holman -
> ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat Manager
> Sent: 23 February 2007 14:13
> To: dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org
> Subject: [dsdl-discuss] Re: Synchronization of the
> OASISRELAXNGCompactSyntax and the ISO/IEC19757-2 AMENDMENT 1: Compact
> Syntax
>
>
> At 2007-02-23 12:20 +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
> >Could we have this subject on the agenda for the SC34 plenary?
>
> I suppose ... though I believe we have already been given clear direction.
>
> >I did submit a paper on coordination of different versions of standards
> >both with SC34 and then in other organizations. The idea is that we
> >produce as few slightly differing versions of a standared as
> >possible.and also that we get the standards published in the different
> >organizations as possible.
>
> And submissions are always welcome, though the
> act of submitting something does not mandate that
> it be implemented. Submitting something makes it
> citable for discussion and reference, it does not make it policy.
>
> >I offered the follwing observations in N735:
> >
> >Now that the ODF standard has been approved as IS 26300, how do we
> >proceed with the next versions of the standard?
>
> In response to the receipt of your document N735
> and questions that arose from readers of your
> document I wrote to JTC 1 for clarification and posted their answer:
>
> http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0764.htm
>
> As OASIS has been designated the maintainer of
> 26300, the situation appears very clear to me,
> and I am unsure why all of this debate is being
> raised at this time. I thought this was all
> brought out in the discussions and the papers posted from mid-2006.
>
> >The DIS ballot resulted in comments of about 20 pages, as contained in
> >SC34 N0728. These comments needs to be addressed, and most likely the
> >final IS 26300 will be changed from the ballotted document. Thus there
> >will be two different standards for ODF, the OASIS standard and the
> >ISO/IEC standard. This is not at good situation.
>
> I cannot understand why you state there will be
> two different standards. This is going to be
> very confusing and detrimental for people to read
> you say this. The procedures are clear, the
> maintainer is OASIS, and there will only be one version of 26300.
>
> Continuing to entertain notions of proceeding in
> a fashion contrary to the JTC 1 Directives
> promotes an attitude that SC34 does not follow
> established rules. Why is this established
> process being questioned, and so publicly, by members of SC34?
> I'm confused.
>
> >What can be done about this?
>
> We can follow JTC 1 procedures is what can be done about this.
>
> >I see 3 scenarios:
> >
> > 1. Leave it as is, and OASIS can go forward with the revision and
> >submit their standard as PAS for the next edition. This will result in a
> >number of different standards from OASIS and ISO, and make implementers
> >a bit confused on which standard to implement.
>
> I don't see how ... OASIS is the maintainer.
>
> > 2. OASIS can take the resulting ISO standard back in their process,
> >and hope that an OASIS ballot will not resolve in changes to the new
> >OASIS standard. This will establish one standard, but it is likely that
> >the changes to the 1.0 standard will be small, and that it will lead to
> >market confusion which version of the standard to implement. It is also
> >possible that the OASIS process introduces new changes.
>
> OASIS is the agreed-upon maintainer so SC34
> should submit any and all issues to OASIS. This
> was *further* clarified in the correspondence from JTC 1 received
> last week.
>
> At 2007-02-23 12:37 +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
> >3. Maintain the standard jointly between
> >OASIS and SC34. There is a model for it
> > in how the POSIX operating system standard is being
> maintained in
> > SC22, recorded in SC34 N0587.
>
> But that is not what we have been directed to do
> by JTC 1, nor does it mesh with the agreement
> between JTC 1 and OASIS when OASIS submitted
> their document for the PAS process.
>
> >I thus recommend that we use the common maintenance model
> recorded in SC34
> >N0587.
>
> I understand that you recommended that, and I
> followed up to determine what the possibilities
> are, and I've long published the documents supporting the current
> situation.
>
> >Similar steps can be done for RELAX NG and other projects.
>
> Why say this now? RELAX-NG, NVDL and the other
> parts of DSDL all went through the complete ISO
> process and are ISO documents, not the documents
> of any FT or PAS submission. These are
> maintained in SC34 as are all other SC34
> standards that originate in SC34 regardless of
> their genesis before they become part of our process.
>
> We are spending an awful lot of energy on issues
> we cannot change and trying to get around procedures by which we
> are bound.
>
> As the Secretariat, I'm feeling incredibly
> compromised by what appears to be a mutiny of
> SC34 members to established JTC 1 process. We
> have accepted the process and procedures by which
> the standards are developed, it is not helping to
> propose contrary behaviours that SC34 will have
> to try and justify, but have no basis for
> justification. If members are asking me to take
> revised SC34-proposed procedures to JTC 1 that
> are contrary to the JTC 1 procedures just for
> SC34 projects, I'm going to be laughed at by JTC 1.
>
> Besides, this is a volunteer effort to run the
> Secretariat and it doesn't seem a very good use
> of my limited time to be pushing against the
> current to do things against established
> procedures we've already agreed to follow.
>
> There are ongoing JTC 1 ad hoc meetings regarding
> Directives. Keld is the SC34 representative in those meetings.
>
> We are bound by JTC 1 rules, and I'm trying to
> administer those rules for this group. That is what you asked me to do.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
>
> --
>
> G. Ken Holman Crane Softwrights Ltd.
> ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat Standards Council of Canada
> Committee correspondence: mailto:jtc1sc34@scc.ca
> Committee website: http://www.jtc1sc34.org
> Corporate correspondence: mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
> Corporate website: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/a/
>
> --
> 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=subscribe)
>

--
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)