From robert_weir@us.ibm.com Wed Apr  4 06:54:52 2007
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_xpLBFJ9on3j7CQfGJOmLjw)"
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:54:34 -0400
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Subject: RE: Processing DIS 29500 (OOXML)
In-reply-to: <A1E4C99650D5884BB1179EA2D5EF8743A1E39D@RSC12.retrievalsystems.com>
To: Steve Carton <steve.carton@retrievalsystems.com>
Cc: Dave Welsh <dave.welsh@microsoft.com>,
        Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com>,
        Frank Farance <frank@farance.com>, Jerry Smith <jerry.smith@disa.mil>,
        Jon Bosak <jon.bosak@sun.com>,
        "Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E" <Leonard.Levine@disa.mil>,
        "Price, Lynne" <lprice@ix.netcom.com>,
        "Mason, James David (MXM)" <masonjd@y12.doe.gov>,
        Norm Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, patrick@durusau.net,
        Rex Jaeschke <rex@RexJaeschke.com>,
        Richard Barber <Richard.Barber@mindjet.com>,
        Ron Silletti <silletti@us.ibm.com>,
        Tim Schoechle <timothy@schoechle.org>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release
 6.5.5FP3|February 7, 2007) at 04/04/2007 09:54:35 AM,
	Serialize complete at 04/04/2007 09:54:35 AM
X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296

This is a multipart message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_xpLBFJ9on3j7CQfGJOmLjw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Blogs for our discussions or public comments?  I know blog posts can be 
tagged, and that could be used to categorize a post by section or topic. 
But in the blogging systems I've seen don't allow response documents to be 
similarly tagged, so this would limit its usefulness for processing public 
comments.

Maybe a Wiki? 

The important thing is to have something that encodes the data model 
implied by the comment template, as well as some metata data that reflects 
our committee's work (who entered, date entered, committee decision, date 
of committee decision).  This could be done by:

Mailing around XML documents that encode the above.  Fine for us, but not 
for public comments.
A mailing list where we have another convention for encoding this data, 
like Patrick's "pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative Format Import Part". Again, the 
public won't get this right.
An online web site, blog, wiki, XForms, whatever, something that will 
validate input and output in correct format. Of course, this will require 
some app dev work and hosting work.

I think whatever we do we'll need to assume that public comments will 
break all rules we make, will be misformatted, miscategorized, etc.  So we 
should assume that we'll need to rekey them to get them to fit within our 
data model.  So if we need todo this always, maybe we just send around XML 
documents ourselves?

-Rob




"Steve Carton" <steve.carton@retrievalsystems.com> 
04/04/2007 09:30 AM

To
<robert_weir@us.ibm.com>, <patrick@durusau.net>
cc
"Dave Welsh" <dave.welsh@microsoft.com>, "Doug Mahugh" 
<Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com>, "Frank Farance" <frank@farance.com>, "Jerry 
Smith" <jerry.smith@disa.mil>, "Jon Bosak" <jon.bosak@sun.com>, "Levine, 
Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E" <Leonard.Levine@disa.mil>, "Price, Lynne" 
<lprice@ix.netcom.com>, "Mason, James David \(MXM\)" 
<masonjd@y12.doe.gov>, "Norm Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, "Rex Jaeschke" 
<rex@RexJaeschke.com>, "Richard Barber" <Richard.Barber@mindjet.com>, "Ron 
Silletti" <silletti@us.ibm.com>, "Tim Schoechle" <timothy@schoechle.org>
Subject
RE: Processing DIS 29500 (OOXML)






I wonder -- would a BLOG style of communication/interaction be appropriate 
here?
 
Steve

From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:27 AM
To: patrick@durusau.net
Cc: Dave Welsh; Doug Mahugh; Frank Farance; Jerry Smith; Jon Bosak; 
Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E; Price, Lynne; Mason, James David (MXM); 
Norm Walsh; Rex Jaeschke; Richard Barber; Ron Silletti; Steve Carton; Tim 
Schoechle
Subject: Re: Processing DIS 29500 (OOXML)


A lot to think of here. 

To your list I'd add a private web page or ftp site for posting large 
documents, such as related ISO standards, or even the DIS 29500 materials 
linked to in this ballot, which I understand is different than the version 
submitted to JTC1 originally.   So we all need access to the current 
materials. 

As for public comments, we definitely should think about how to do this 
efficiently.  I know that other NB's were inundated with comments, often 
to their business or personal email addresses.  If we can avoid the chaos 
while at the same time being responsive to the public, this would be 
preferred.  Whether we want it or not, public comments will come.  The 
question is whether we want to take steps now to make this a more orderly 
process? 

Are you able to get to ISO_CommentsTemplate.zip, which is the template for 
entering comments?  I'd recommend that we submit our final comments in ODF 
if possible.  We can map the data model of the template to conventions for 
the email comments, such as your "pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative Format Import 
Part" example, and generate the ODF document automatically from the email 
comments. 

-Rob 
___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ 


Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> 
04/04/2007 08:29 AM 

Please respond to
patrick@durusau.net



To
Frank Farance <frank@farance.com>, Jon Bosak <jon.bosak@sun.com>, "Price, 
Lynne" <lprice@ix.netcom.com>, Dave Welsh <dave.welsh@microsoft.com>, Doug 
Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com>, Rex Jaeschke <rex@RexJaeschke.com>, 
Steve Carton <steve.carton@retrievalsystems.com>, Jerry Smith 
<jerry.smith@disa.mil>, Norm Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Richard Barber 
<Richard.Barber@mindjet.com>, Robert Weir <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>, 
"Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E" <Leonard.Levine@disa.mil>, Tim 
Schoechle <timothy@schoechle.org>, "Mason, James David (MXM)" 
<masonjd@y12.doe.gov>, Ron Silletti <silletti@us.ibm.com> 
cc

Subject
Processing DIS 29500 (OOXML)








Greetings!

As I noted in my post yesterday, we have until June 17, 2007 to prepare 
the recommended position on DIS 29500.

Having slept on it I have some more specific suggestions on how we 
should proceed.

1. Obviously we need a mail reflector for V1 members. I will talk to 
Frank Farance about this but I do have a question:

Should we have a public archive of our discussions?

My personal opinion is yes since the ISO standards process is supposed 
to be "transparent." I take that to mean that the discussions in that 
process should be available to anyone who wants to see them.

2. Do we need a public list for the submission of comments from members 
of the public?

OASIS has such lists and I can attest that they have been helpful any 
number of times in finding bugs in standards.

I am less certain that we need an email list in the traditional sense 
because feelings are running high enough on all sides to make an open 
list too much traffic to be useful.

On the other hand, a widely publicized webpage for comments that forces 
choice of a part and section, so that the comments can be automatically 
sorted could be really useful. I don't have any illusions about our 
committee being able to review every nook and cranny of DIS 29500.

The results from such a webpage should be public for the same reasons as 
the proposed discussion list for the committee.

3. Comments by V1 Members

I have reviewed the membership list and at least at this point we all 
appear to have unique initials.

My suggestion on comments is that we use the subject line to contain our 
initials, followed by a colon, followed by the part, colon and then the 
section number and heading of the portion of OOXML we are commenting on. 
Thus,

pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative Format Import Part

That will be very helpful in terms of marshalling all the comments and 
responses on a particular section for discussion.

I don't have a definitive date on the OOXML topic map that my handlers 
are preparing under my direction and I don't want to wait until that is 
certain one way or the other to setup mechanisms for our discussions. If 
the software proves useful for the committee, we can always import any 
data we have generated by that point anyway.

4. Processing comments and developing the US recommended position

I think we need a two-stage process for the development of the US 
recommended position.

a. We need to process the comments and decide if we accept the comments, 
without deciding on what impact any particular comment has on the 
ultimate recommended position. That will enable us to develop a basis on 
which to formulate our ultimate position.

b. After processing of our comments, then we use those comments as the 
basis for our recommendation on the US position.

5. Sharing V1 comments with other NBs.

The formulation of the recommended US position may or may not include 
comments. However, I would like to suggest that as we develop our 
position on particular comments, I would like to share those with other 
NBs. Given the size and complexity of the proposal, being aware of our 
comments may cause other NBs to develop comments on areas that we have 
not had time to consider.

6. Evaluation and adoption of comments

I really don't know how many comments we are going to generate as V1 
members nor how many comments will appear from members of the public.

There are several ways we can process the comments.

Although I distrust wikis, it might not be a bad idea to post the 
comments to a wiki where only V1 members could vote and we can both 
comment as well as indicate our vote of yes or no on each issue. From 
what I understand of Drupal, it has the ability to control who votes and 
to show the results of the votes.

In the absence of the soon to appear topic map software that might be a 
better processing model than what I have suggested above.

Noting that in any event I will have to use the INCITS comment template 
to prepare whatever comments are accepted by the committee to be 
included with the ballot results reflecting our ultimate position.

I am not opposed to having weekly teleconferences, say on Fridays, to 
discuss a given set of comments.

7. Recommendation (yes, you were looking for this part)

I suspect that as we near the end of the process we are going to need a 
face to face meeting to go over the final set of comments accepted by 
the committee and to develop our recommendation.

Not knowing how many comments we will accept or the nature of those 
comments, it is hard for me to say how long such a meeting would last.

I do think that we need to have teleconferencing facilities so any 
members who cannot physically attend can be present for the meeting.

Noting that the ballot is due on 17 June 2007, might we consider having 
a face to face starting on the 14th or 15th of June?

By that point we should have a set of comments that have been agreed 
upon by V1 and I assume that we will want to refine those and develop 
our final recommendation.

Thoughts? Comments?

Hope everyone is having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@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! 




--Boundary_(ID_xpLBFJ9on3j7CQfGJOmLjw)
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Blogs for our discussions or public
comments? &nbsp;I know blog posts can be tagged, and that could be used
to categorize a post by section or topic. &nbsp;But in the blogging systems
I've seen don't allow response documents to be similarly tagged, so this
would limit its usefulness for processing public comments.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Maybe a Wiki? &nbsp;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The important thing is to have something
that encodes the data model implied by the comment template, as well as
some metata data that reflects our committee's work (who entered, date
entered, committee decision, date of committee decision). &nbsp;This could
be done by:</font>
<br>
<ul>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mailing around XML documents that encode
the above. &nbsp;Fine for us, but not for public comments.</font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">A mailing list where we have another
convention for encoding this data, like Patrick's &quot;pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative
Format Import Part&quot;. Again, the public won't get this right.</font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">An online web site, blog, wiki, XForms,
whatever, something that will validate input and output in correct format.
Of course, this will require some app dev work and hosting work.</font></ul>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I think whatever we do we'll need to
assume that public comments will break all rules we make, will be misformatted,
miscategorized, etc. &nbsp;So we should assume that we'll need to rekey
them to get them to fit within our data model. &nbsp;So if we need todo
this always, maybe we just send around XML documents ourselves?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-Rob</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>&quot;Steve Carton&quot;
&lt;steve.carton@retrievalsystems.com&gt;</b> </font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">04/04/2007 09:30 AM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&lt;robert_weir@us.ibm.com&gt;, &lt;patrick@durusau.net&gt;</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&quot;Dave Welsh&quot; &lt;dave.welsh@microsoft.com&gt;,
&quot;Doug Mahugh&quot; &lt;Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com&gt;, &quot;Frank
Farance&quot; &lt;frank@farance.com&gt;, &quot;Jerry Smith&quot; &lt;jerry.smith@disa.mil&gt;,
&quot;Jon Bosak&quot; &lt;jon.bosak@sun.com&gt;, &quot;Levine, Leonard
F CIV DISA GES-E&quot; &lt;Leonard.Levine@disa.mil&gt;, &quot;Price, Lynne&quot;
&lt;lprice@ix.netcom.com&gt;, &quot;Mason, James David \(MXM\)&quot; &lt;masonjd@y12.doe.gov&gt;,
&quot;Norm Walsh&quot; &lt;ndw@nwalsh.com&gt;, &quot;Rex Jaeschke&quot;
&lt;rex@RexJaeschke.com&gt;, &quot;Richard Barber&quot; &lt;Richard.Barber@mindjet.com&gt;,
&quot;Ron Silletti&quot; &lt;silletti@us.ibm.com&gt;, &quot;Tim Schoechle&quot;
&lt;timothy@schoechle.org&gt;</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RE: Processing DIS 29500 (OOXML)</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">I wonder -- would a BLOG style
of communication/interaction be appropriate here?</font>
<br><font size=3>&nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">Steve</font>
<br>
<br>
<hr><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
<b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:27 AM<b><br>
To:</b> patrick@durusau.net<b><br>
Cc:</b> Dave Welsh; Doug Mahugh; Frank Farance; Jerry Smith; Jon Bosak;
Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E; Price, Lynne; Mason, James David (MXM);
Norm Walsh; Rex Jaeschke; Richard Barber; Ron Silletti; Steve Carton; Tim
Schoechle<b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: Processing DIS 29500 (OOXML)</font><font size=3><br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
A lot to think of here.</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
To your list I'd add a private web page or ftp site for posting large documents,
such as related ISO standards, or even the DIS 29500 materials linked to
in this ballot, which I understand is different than the version submitted
to JTC1 originally. &nbsp; So we all need access to the current materials.</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
As for public comments, we definitely should think about how to do this
efficiently. &nbsp;I know that other NB's were inundated with comments,
often to their business or personal email addresses. &nbsp;If we can avoid
the chaos while at the same time being responsive to the public, this would
be preferred. &nbsp;Whether we want it or not, public comments will come.
&nbsp;The question is whether we want to take steps now to make this a
more orderly process?</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Are you able to get to ISO_CommentsTemplate.zip, which is the template
for entering comments? &nbsp;I'd recommend that we submit our final comments
in ODF if possible. &nbsp;We can map the data model of the template to
conventions for the email comments, such as your &quot;pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative
Format Import Part&quot; example, and generate the ODF document automatically
from the email comments.</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-Rob</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
___________________________<br>
<br>
Rob Weir<br>
Software Architect<br>
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software<br>
IBM Software Group<br>
<br>
email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com<br>
phone: 1-978-399-7122<br>
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/</font><font size=3> <br>
<br>
</font>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=13%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Patrick Durusau &lt;patrick@durusau.net&gt;</b>
</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">04/04/2007 08:29 AM</font><font size=3>
</font>
<br>
<table border=4>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
patrick@durusau.net</font></div></table>
<p>
<td width=86%>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=3%>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td width=96%><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Frank Farance &lt;frank@farance.com&gt;,
Jon Bosak &lt;jon.bosak@sun.com&gt;, &quot;Price, Lynne&quot; &lt;lprice@ix.netcom.com&gt;,
Dave Welsh &lt;dave.welsh@microsoft.com&gt;, Doug Mahugh &lt;Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com&gt;,
Rex Jaeschke &lt;rex@RexJaeschke.com&gt;, Steve Carton &lt;steve.carton@retrievalsystems.com&gt;,
Jerry Smith &lt;jerry.smith@disa.mil&gt;, Norm Walsh &lt;ndw@nwalsh.com&gt;,
Richard Barber &lt;Richard.Barber@mindjet.com&gt;, Robert Weir &lt;robert_weir@us.ibm.com&gt;,
&quot;Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E&quot; &lt;Leonard.Levine@disa.mil&gt;,
Tim Schoechle &lt;timothy@schoechle.org&gt;, &quot;Mason, James David (MXM)&quot;
&lt;masonjd@y12.doe.gov&gt;, Ron Silletti &lt;silletti@us.ibm.com&gt;</font><font size=3>
</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Processing DIS 29500 (OOXML)</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br><font size=3><br>
<br>
</font><tt><font size=2><br>
Greetings!<br>
<br>
As I noted in my post yesterday, we have until June 17, 2007 to prepare
<br>
the recommended position on DIS 29500.<br>
<br>
Having slept on it I have some more specific suggestions on how we <br>
should proceed.<br>
<br>
1. Obviously we need a mail reflector for V1 members. I will talk to <br>
Frank Farance about this but I do have a question:<br>
<br>
Should we have a public archive of our discussions?<br>
<br>
My personal opinion is yes since the ISO standards process is supposed
<br>
to be &quot;transparent.&quot; I take that to mean that the discussions
in that <br>
process should be available to anyone who wants to see them.<br>
<br>
2. Do we need a public list for the submission of comments from members
<br>
of the public?<br>
<br>
OASIS has such lists and I can attest that they have been helpful any <br>
number of times in finding bugs in standards.<br>
<br>
I am less certain that we need an email list in the traditional sense <br>
because feelings are running high enough on all sides to make an open <br>
list too much traffic to be useful.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, a widely publicized webpage for comments that forces
<br>
choice of a part and section, so that the comments can be automatically
<br>
sorted could be really useful. I don't have any illusions about our <br>
committee being able to review every nook and cranny of DIS 29500.<br>
<br>
The results from such a webpage should be public for the same reasons as
<br>
the proposed discussion list for the committee.<br>
<br>
3. Comments by V1 Members<br>
<br>
I have reviewed the membership list and at least at this point we all <br>
appear to have unique initials.<br>
<br>
My suggestion on comments is that we use the subject line to contain our
<br>
initials, followed by a colon, followed by the part, colon and then the
<br>
section number and heading of the portion of OOXML we are commenting on.
<br>
Thus,<br>
<br>
pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative Format Import Part<br>
<br>
That will be very helpful in terms of marshalling all the comments and
<br>
responses on a particular section for discussion.<br>
<br>
I don't have a definitive date on the OOXML topic map that my handlers
<br>
are preparing under my direction and I don't want to wait until that is
<br>
certain one way or the other to setup mechanisms for our discussions. If
<br>
the software proves useful for the committee, we can always import any
<br>
data we have generated by that point anyway.<br>
<br>
4. Processing comments and developing the US recommended position<br>
<br>
I think we need a two-stage process for the development of the US <br>
recommended position.<br>
<br>
a. We need to process the comments and decide if we accept the comments,
<br>
without deciding on what impact any particular comment has on the <br>
ultimate recommended position. That will enable us to develop a basis on
<br>
which to formulate our ultimate position.<br>
<br>
b. After processing of our comments, then we use those comments as the
<br>
basis for our recommendation on the US position.<br>
<br>
5. Sharing V1 comments with other NBs.<br>
<br>
The formulation of the recommended US position may or may not include <br>
comments. However, I would like to suggest that as we develop our <br>
position on particular comments, I would like to share those with other
<br>
NBs. Given the size and complexity of the proposal, being aware of our
<br>
comments may cause other NBs to develop comments on areas that we have
<br>
not had time to consider.<br>
<br>
6. Evaluation and adoption of comments<br>
<br>
I really don't know how many comments we are going to generate as V1 <br>
members nor how many comments will appear from members of the public.<br>
<br>
There are several ways we can process the comments.<br>
<br>
Although I distrust wikis, it might not be a bad idea to post the <br>
comments to a wiki where only V1 members could vote and we can both <br>
comment as well as indicate our vote of yes or no on each issue. From <br>
what I understand of Drupal, it has the ability to control who votes and
<br>
to show the results of the votes.<br>
<br>
In the absence of the soon to appear topic map software that might be a
<br>
better processing model than what I have suggested above.<br>
<br>
Noting that in any event I will have to use the INCITS comment template
<br>
to prepare whatever comments are accepted by the committee to be <br>
included with the ballot results reflecting our ultimate position.<br>
<br>
I am not opposed to having weekly teleconferences, say on Fridays, to <br>
discuss a given set of comments.<br>
<br>
7. Recommendation (yes, you were looking for this part)<br>
<br>
I suspect that as we near the end of the process we are going to need a
<br>
face to face meeting to go over the final set of comments accepted by <br>
the committee and to develop our recommendation.<br>
<br>
Not knowing how many comments we will accept or the nature of those <br>
comments, it is hard for me to say how long such a meeting would last.<br>
<br>
I do think that we need to have teleconferencing facilities so any <br>
members who cannot physically attend can be present for the meeting.<br>
<br>
Noting that the ballot is due on 17 June 2007, might we consider having
<br>
a face to face starting on the 14th or 15th of June?<br>
<br>
By that point we should have a set of comments that have been agreed <br>
upon by V1 and I assume that we will want to refine those and develop <br>
our final recommendation.<br>
<br>
Thoughts? Comments?<br>
<br>
Hope everyone is having a great day!<br>
<br>
Patrick<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Patrick Durusau<br>
Patrick@Durusau.net<br>
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface<br>
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model<br>
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005<br>
<br>
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! <br>
<br>
</font></tt><font size=3><br>
</font>
<br>

--Boundary_(ID_xpLBFJ9on3j7CQfGJOmLjw)--

