[sc34wg3] Editorial structure of N0396

Sam Hunting sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 09:18:07 -0400 (EDT)

> * Sam Hunting
> |
> | Moreover, I would argue, FWIW, that they are the result of consensus
> | about a text as submitted -- not consensus about an imagined text
> | that might one day be written.
> Once the final text is submitted it is voted and commented on. So
> obviously the vote will not be conducted on the N0396.

Obviousness being in the mind of the beholder. The combination of the (now
to be corrected) labeling of N0396 as a "Committee Draft" and the wording
of the Norwegian National Body's position on this point (see below) must
have led to misunderstanding on this point.

> | N0396 has a note that reads "Rewrite this document in the correct
> | style for an ISO standard." Until this is done -- and doing this
> | seems to me the best way to "move on" -- I don't see how it is
> | possible to come to consensus, since there is no text to come to a
> | consensus about.
> The ISO-conformant text need not be very substantially different from
> the text as it stands today. It's primarily the references, the
> glossary, some formatting, and some other minor details that need to
> change.

Yes, that is the point at issue. "Minor" being in the eye of the beholder.

>  | Personally, I think Patrick's thinking on a single standard is |
> useful and potentially a way forward.
> So you started this thread and spent 10+ emails in order to finally,
> indirectly, express a proposal that the whole thing be assigned to
> somebody to be rewritten to a single document? If so, you could have
> saved us all a lot of time by just saying it straight out at once.

No, and no. There are two issues: (1) the nature of N0396 as a working
draft, and (2) whether N0396 should be combined with other working drafts
into a single document.

As to (1) Norway's position is nowsatted as follows:

    > It is our view that once all the issues have been resolved the
    > authors should be instructed to prepare a text that implements those
    > resolutions *and* conforms to the ISO guidelines, and *that* text
    > should be submitted for CD status.

which to my eye -- although informed by the mislabeling of N0396 as a
"committee draft" -- is more clear than this:

    Subject: [sc34wg3] The Norwegian National Body position on ISO 13250

    [...]I would like to state the position of the
    Norwegian National Body, so that committee members are aware
    of it in advance of the London meeting.

    It can be summarized as follows:

       The Norwegian NB believes it is of the utmost urgency to
       move both the SAM and XTM forward as soon as possible.


    The only solution is to finalize the SAM and XTM specs as soon
    as possible... 


    once again, progressing the SAM is a matter of real urgency.

    In our opinion, progressing the SAM should not present any
    problems. ...


    For these reasons, the Norwegian NB will be pressing for the
    SAM and XTM to move to CD stage at the London meeting  ...


The comments were meant to (a) clarify the status of N0396 as a working
draft, given the agreed mislabelling as a committee draft, (b) list what
needed to be done, in our view, to make it conformant, and to (c) clarify
whether Norway intended to press for a non-conformant text "to move to CD
stage at the London meeting" (see above).


> | As for "moving on" -- no one seems to have thought to ask Patrick
> | how long he thinks it would take to produce a unified text. Patrick?
> Nor does anyone seem to have thought to ask him what he thinks such an
> animal will look like. How close to/far away from the current texts
> will it be?


Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

Co-editor:  ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps 
  Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org
  XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.