[sc34wg3] Process Queston for Oslo: new work items

Thu Mar 1 10:49:11 EST 2007

Dear Durusau-san,

Concerning the use of study period, I agree with you.
As you know, we are preparing two NPs, Visual Topic Maps and Topic Maps 
Benchmark.
Those proposals were approved in Japan recently.
I attach the draft NPs of those.
I think we need some study period.

Concerning OWG, when do you think the meeting will be held? Will OWG have 
parallel meeting with WG3?

Best regards,

Motomu Naito

At 02:43 07/02/28, you wrote:
 >Greetings!
 >
 >In preparation for the Oslo meeting I am hopeful that we can have 
discussion of the more interesting issue list for the work items but also 
some discussion of procedures for the WG 3.
 >
 >I would like for the WG members to consider establishing new rules or at 
least habits of how we treat proposals for new work items.
 >
 >So as to not use any current or proposed work items as an illustration, I 
have made up a new proposal and set forth what I think the response of the 
committee should be on such items.
 >
 >Assume that I (probably in conjunction with Newcomb) proposed a new work 
item to standardize a mapping of Inter-Galactic Topic Maps to the TMDM. 
(Reasoning that all space faring races eventually develop topic maps in the 
nature course of the evolution of their information systems.)
 >
 >Obviously an exciting topic (sorry) and one that will be quite useful 
when we do discover other space faring races.
 >
 >But, merely filling out the one page NP proposal really should provoke 
the following response:
 >
 >1. Requirements: Do you have a sufficiently specific set of requirements 
that are supported by a majority of the P members of the SC?
 >
 >2. Draft: Do you have a sufficiently clear idea of what is to be 
standardized to meet the default 12 month period for production of a CD?
 >
 >Noting that the JTC 1 Directives presume a study period that leads to the 
production of an NP:
 >
 >> 6.2.3.2.1 An NP for a new work area should be the output of a study 
period in the SC concerned during which
 >> NBs, liaison organisations and other SCs that may be concerned have 
been able to review and comment on
 >> drafts for the NP. The final draft should be subject to the formal 
approval of the SC responsible before
 >> submission to JTC 1.
 >> 6.2.3.2.2 The study should address:
 >> $BI(BThe requirements, involving possible users where this is relevant;
 >> $BI(BThe relationships with other work, the technical approach and 
technical feasibility of the NP, including
 >> identification of reference material on technical issues and initial 
material if available;
 >> $BI(BThe preparation of a detailed plan of work covering the timetable, 
resource requirements and resource
 >> availability (technical and administrative).
 >
 >Note that further the JTC 1 Directives note:
 >
 >> 6.2.3.3.1 The NP itself should contain a realistic estimate of the 
overall workload involved in the development of
 >> the new work area.
 >> 6.2.3.3.2 The NP should indicate a proposed start date for the project 
if it is approved. This date should not
 >> simply be the end of the NP ballot period, but should represent a 
realistic target, based on the workload and
 >> priorities of the SC in which the work will be carried out.
 >> 6.2.3.3.3 SCs should be encouraged to establish clear milestones and 
then to conduct realistic and regular
 >> reviews of their workload, to prioritise their work items in order of 
importance and to suspend or delete those
 >> items that are not being actively pursued.
 >
 >I think it is clear from the rules that Steve and I would fall short on a 
couple of counts.
 >
 >First, we probably have a clear idea of what we want to standardize, but 
a simple NP isn't going to be sufficient to communicate that to the P 
members who make of the SC.
 >
 >Second, even if we can communicate what we want to standardize, an idea 
for standardization isn't the same thing (at least in my mind) as a 
proposal for standardization. An "idea" for sandardization can take longer 
than permitted by the relevant rules to reach any particular stage, whereas 
with an actual proposal, the P members can make some reasoned judgment as 
to whether a CD is likely to result in 12 months.
 >
 >So, my suggestion is that either by rule or custom, that the members of 
the SC agree that we should use the study period as suggested by the JTC 1 
Directives to formulate specific requirements and drafts substantial enough 
to reasonably anticipate the production of CD's within one year of the 
approval of an NP.
 >
 >I have several other suggestions that I hope will allow us to get our 
work load under control and to meet the requirements of both ISO and JTC 1. 
Realize that however meaningful projects may be to us, that failure to play 
by the rules of ISO/JTC 1 can result in cancellation of projects.
 >
 >I care too much about the various projects our WG has underway and the 
hopes and ambitions of its members to risk that over something as simple as 
following the rules as detailed by ISO/JTC 1.
 >
 >Granted that all change is difficult and this change in particular 
because it calls upon us to change ourselves. (Calling for change in others 
is quite easy and to judge from the news media, quite popular.) But, I 
think we will see the benefits of such change in coming closer to meeting 
the directives (over time) and being more productive as an WG.
 >
 >Procedurally, since there are those will a greater interest than others 
in particular items to be considered during a study period, I would suggest 
that the SC create OWG (other working groups) under the JTC 1 Directives 
with instructions on what the committee will require to consider an NP. 
That will give the activity a framework within which to occur, a named lead 
for the activity and it will need to be renewed on each plenary meeting, 
which should help prod the production of work from the OWG.
 >
 >Apologies for the length of this post but it is one of the more 
complicated issues that we face on the adminstrative front.
 >
 >Hope everyone is in good health and spirits!
 >
 >Patrick
 >
 >PS: Please pardon in advance any slowness in my responding to replies. I 
am in Berlin for an advancing eGovernment conference and have very limited 
access to email. All of your responses are important because as the 
committee you will be making the choices that guide our work.
 >
 >--
 >Patrick Durusau
 >Patrick at Durusau.net
 >Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
 >Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
 >Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
 >
 >Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
 >
 >
 >_______________________________________________
 >sc34wg3 mailing list
 >sc34wg3 at isotopicmaps.org
 >http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

------------------------------------------------------------------
Motomu Naito <motom at green.ocn.ne.jp>
CEO, Knowledge Synergy Inc.
3-747-4-203, Kusunokidai, Tokorozawa, Saitama 359-0037 Japan
http://www.knowledge-synergy.com/
phone: +81-4-2993-0519  cell phone: +81-90-4926-1306
Delegate to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3 (Topic Maps WG) from Japan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: visualTM-benchmark.zip
Type: application/x-zip-compressed
Size: 12710 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.petesbox.net/pipermail/sc34wg3/attachments/20070302/df8cdf07/visualTM-benchmark.bin