From Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com Tue May 15 14:20:12 2007
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:16:12 -0700
From: Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: May 14th Meeting Notice and Agenda (and future meetings)
In-reply-to: <464A1C2D.1040306@durusau.net>
To: "patrick@durusau.net" <patrick@durusau.net>,
        Rex Jaeschke <rex@RexJaeschke.com>
Cc: Dave Welsh <Dave.Welsh@microsoft.com>,
        "'Frank Farance'" <frank@farance.com>,
        "'Jon Bosak'" <jon.bosak@sun.com>,
        "'Price, Lynne'" <lprice@ix.netcom.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>,
        "'Kevin Trainor'" <ktrainor@ligent.net>
Content-language: en-US
Accept-Language: en-US
Thread-topic: May 14th Meeting Notice and Agenda (and future meetings)
Thread-index: AceXMiB6Li77JaMlR9+U+yfG1Kxm2gABCNK+
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 

Hi Patrick,

Glad to hear you're back online.

 > Take the specification of VML in DIS 29500 for example. Simply because
 > it has never been specified anywhere before is not a reason to include
 > it in DIS 29500. It is in fact depracated by DIS 29500.

FYI, here's the VML spec that was submitted to W3C in 1998: http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-VML.html

Regards,
Doug

________________________________________
From: Patrick Durusau [patrick@durusau.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:46 PM
To: Rex Jaeschke
Cc: Dave Welsh; 'Frank Farance'; 'Jon Bosak'; 'Price, Lynne'; Doug Mahugh; 'Steve Carton'; 'Jerry Smith'; 'Norm Walsh'; 'Richard Barber'; 'Robert Weir'; 'Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E'; 'Tim Schoechle'; 'Kevin Trainor'
Subject: Re: May 14th Meeting Notice and Agenda (and future meetings)

Rex,

Well, I don't know if to be happy or sad that I am once again
operational. Particularly when I saw 400+ emails in my inbox. ;-)

On the whole I think I am happy!

I have one comment right now but will have others after I have sorted
some more of my email.

Rex Jaeschke wrote:

> Dear V1 Members,
>
> I’m writing the following in response to Patrick’s recent posting
> about the process to be used to deal with the OpenXML DIS 29500 Fast
> Track. We’ll be discussing this topic on next Monday’s phone call.
>
> *Introduction*
>
> As many of us know from experience, making a software specification of
> non-trivial size and complexity be perfect is extremely difficult and
> time consuming. And I think we all agree that DIS 29500 is of
> non-trivial size and complexity. The pragmatic approach then is to
> ask, “Is the DIS 29500 specification good enough for the current and
> projected needs of business and industry? And if defects that
> materially affect those needs are found, is there a good enough
> process in place to fix them?”
>
> Hindsight is the most exacting science. Yes, if we were starting from
> scratch, we'd all like to improve any standard on which we've worked.
> However, in any standard that attempts to consolidate prior art, as
> does DIS 29500, I hope we are beyond the point of trying to make it
> perfect for perfections own sake.
>
> As such, with respect to DIS 29500, I see the main task of V1 as
> reporting editorial and technical errors that_ impede or prohibit
> implementation of the specification_. And since the submitter of such
> an error must explain the problem clearly enough for it to be
> addressed at any ballot resolution meeting, they are also in the best
> position to outline possible solutions. Indeed, I believe they have an
> obligation to do so lest the error be considered purely academic.
>
I must say I think that is far too narrow a test for any standards
proposal. Supposedly all those issues should have been solved by the
proposing standards body before it ever was submitted for a fast track.

I hope to have some issues filed tonight for the next meeting but let me
pick one at random that should be an issue but that would fail your test.

Take the specification of VML in DIS 29500 for example. Simply because
it has never been specified anywhere before is not a reason to include
it in DIS 29500. It is in fact depracated by DIS 29500.

That certainly isn't a barrier to implementation of the specification
but on the other hand, we have been asked to make this specification an
ISO standard. And that means that it meets some criteria other than
simply being proposed by some submitter or that it has some fatal flaw
that prohibits implementation.

Otherwise a submitter could simply say that it has in fact implemented
the proposal as written and the JTC 1 Secretariat would simply issue IS
status like a vending machine.

No, there is more to becoming an ISO standard than someone wants a
proposal to be an ISO standard and it is possible to implement it.
Actually the directives are fairly vague about what grounds an NB can
have for voting against a proposal but I think it is presumed that the
grounds have something to do with the substance of the proposal. In
other words it can't be on the basis of the month it was filed or the
day of the week of the ballot closing, etc.

NOTE: I do agree and I think it is a requirement for a no with comments
issue that the submitter of the comments has to suggest a solution to
the issue. How detailed that solution must be really isn't specified but
my tendency is to expect more rather than less detail. (Also noting that
the resolution isn't limited to the solution submitted by the NB making
the comment.)

Hope you are 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!

