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

Ken

 I also appreciate your statement that RELAX NG is WG1's responsibility to
correct but while you state correctly "OASIS has committed to take their
revisions to JTC 1" I do not believe this is the problem WG1 are currently
facing.

The problem is "Who is committed to ensuring technical errors found by JTC1
are taken into account?" Murata-san has detected errors during translation.
We need a mechanism for resolving errors to the published standard, without
the need to create a new standard. At present I as convenor of the Working
Group am not sure what process I need to adopt to get a correction made to a
yet-to-be-published PAS submission. I have a meeting at which this question
has been scheduled for in three or four weeks time and other than being told
to submit the corrections to OASIS I have no guidance as to what to do if
nothing is done in response to doing this. What is the OASIS procedure for
publishing technical corrigenda? Is there one? Who is responsible for its
opertaion? I need someone from OASIS at the meeting to explain how they will
process the technical corrigenda we must submit in response to the Japanese
input. Patrick will need to be sure he has time to answer questions from WG1
on this, despite his busy WG3 schedule, otherwise I must waste your time
bringing it up in plenary if I am to get my job done properly.

Whilst I agree that discussions on changes of procedure need to be brought
up at the next JTC1 meeting it is far too late to add them to the agenda of
the forthcoming JTC1 meeting. Another year's delay will mean that we don't
get to deal with the genuine Japanese concerns till 2008 or 2009. In my
opinion this is just not acceptable in terms of "fast-track". If we have
"fast-track" submissions that we do not have adequate time to process
accurately we need a "fast-track" corrections procedure, not one that
requires years to get agreement as to what needs to be done.

Yours frustratedly

Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Ken Holman - ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat Manager"
<jtc1sc34@scc.ca>
To: <dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 2:02 AM
Subject: [dsdl-discuss] Re: Synchronization of the OASISRELAXNGCompactSyntax
and the ISO/IEC19757-2 AMENDMENT 1: Compact Syntax

Keld, I must apologize that some of my comments
in my response to your post were directed to the
group and not to you individually. In
particular, the comments at the end regarding the following of process.

I have only a few comments to add.

At 2007-02-24 00:17 +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
>It seems to me less than optimal, given that a number of member bodies
>are in the process of implementing IS 26300 as national standards.
>To me maintenance of IS 26300 and its national implementaions could
>turn out to be a nightmare.

But there are other standards that evolve through
regular maintenance. Surely this is a manageable process.

>Also I had not understood that the maintenance was a done deal and
>allocated to OASIS. This may be my fault. But I would have expected this
>be something that would be discussed in SC34 before a decisionn was
>made, given that there had been interest in discusing it in SC34.
>My understanding was that N735 was well received in SC34, and there was
>quite some sympathy for the opinions raised there, but of cause no
>decision on the matter.

SC34 has no role in the determination of the
maintenance procedures. 26300 came to us as a
PAS submission through JTC 1. According to
Directives 14.4.2 the negotiation of maintenance
is between JTC 1 and the PAS
submitter. According to Directives 14.4.3.4 it
isn't until the DIS is published that SC34 sees
the document, and it isn't until the ballot
resolution group meeting that SC34 has any
responsibilities (and then it is only the Secretariat).

>There will be an OASIS standard, different from IS 26300.
>This will confuse the marketplace.

But the maintenance agreement states that OASIS brings the work back to JTC
1.

> > 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.
>
>Why do you say it is very public? I only know of discussions on this
>email list, which is our internal email list.

I withdraw my comment ... I forgot that this
list's membership is through national
bodies. Please forgive my rushed
response. Note, however, that this list is only
a *project* list and not a list involving the
entire membership of SC34. And discussion of
26300 is off-topic for a mail list dedicated to DSDL.

>Which IMHO is quite problematic. So we could discuss if the arrangement
>could be changed.

The arrangement is between JTC 1 and OASIS.

As mentioned by Francis, there may be some
concern about taking time to discuss things that
are not in our control. We will need to
determine if there is sufficient national body
support at the meeting to engage in these discussions.

>We may also spend an awful lot of energy with the current arrangement,
>plus confuse the marketplace. It is much easier if we cooperate.

I'm sorry that I don't see the urgency that you
do. OASIS has committed to take their revisions to JTC 1.

> > 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.
>
>What is being discussed here is not contrary to JTC 1 procedures.
>But of cause it would remove some control from OASIS, and they
>may be hesitant about this.

Well, I'm not looking forward to asking JTC 1 to
change an already negotiated position they have
with OASIS. The PAS submission went through JTC
1, not SC34, and we are the custodians of this
JTC 1 project but according to the agreement not responsible for
maintenance.

And I was talking to the entire group here
because of the comments regarding RELAX-NG, which
is on topic for this mail list and was the
subject that triggered this thread. 19757-2 was
developed through all of the steps of ISO
standardization and is the responsibility of
SC34, it was not contributed as a PAS submission through JTC 1.

So, my comments about procedure stem from members
bringing up for discussion changing the
established maintenance procedures for these projects.

> > 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.
>
>We did not decide in SC34 how we wanted to maintain IS 26300.

I do not believe it was for us to decide. ODF
came to us as a JTC 1 project and the PAS
submission negotiation is not under our purview.

> > 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.
>
>Agree. I don't see how the discussion here would be contrary to that job.

Asking JTC 1 to change the negotiated situation is, in my opinion, contrary.

As I see it, OASIS is responsible for maintaining
26300 and SC34 is responsible for maintaining
DSDL parts. Changing this would require SC34 to
ask JTC 1, with justification, for changing the status quo.

>I believe that doing some work on a versatile arrangement for
>maintenance of IS 26300 can save us quite some problems in the future,
>and reduce confusion in the marketplace considerably. And it can
>strenghten SC34 a little, in getting our standards to be used,
>as they will not always be outdated in comparison to the OASIS versions.
>And it can reduce the workload. It is easier to maintain just one
>version (both OASIS and ISO) than maintaing two.

Point made. I will ask at the Oslo plenary if
national bodies want to open this established
issue or not. You asked if it would go on the
agenda, and it is on, but I'm not sure there will
be support from the attendant group to open this topic.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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)