[sc34wg3] Agenda for 22-25 May
Wed, 18 May 2005 14:05:03 +0200
| Is it only me that is concerned about this then?
It would seem so. I delayed replying to see if anyone else had an
| Is the agenda fixed and unchangeable?
The dates are fixed and changeable. They were fixed at the end of
February after discussion on the list so it has been clear since
then that the WG3 meeting would overlap with both the XTech tutorial
day and the first day of the conference. There were no objections
to this at the time.
The draft agenda was posted at the end of March, but without the
allocation of topics to specific days. After soliciting input from
attendees (particularly editors) on scheduling constraints, I have
put together the following suggested agenda:
Sunday AM: RDF/TM Interoperability Initiative
Sunday PM: SC34 Opening Plenary
Presentation on OWL DL and Topic Maps
Monday: 19756: TMCL
Tuesday: 13250: TMDM, XTM, CXTM, TMRM
Wednesday: 18048: TMQL
Normal procedure is for the committee to approve this agenda at the
start of the meeting. Because of scheduling constraints on the part
of some editors, I don't expect this to change.
| I have a comment to make on the agenda for the WG3 meetings next week. I
| note that no substantive work on ISO 13250 or TMCL/TMQL to be done on
| the Sunday, but that TMQL work is now scheduled to be done on the
| Wednesday. I would like to raise my objection to this schedule as it
| does not allow for members of the WG to also attend the opening day of
| the XTech conference. I understand that the work scheduled for Sunday is
| a review of the TM-RDF work being carried out with W3C, and a
| presentation of OWL in topic maps - while both are interesting items for
| the WG members, I believe that it would be better to be given a choice
| between attending these sessions or the XTech conference rather than
| scheduling things such that conference attend ees are not able to
| participate in WG3 standards work.
I'm sorry the agenda doesn't fit your schedule. If you had raised
this issue earlier, something could have been done about it. As it is,
various travel and other arrangements have been made that cannot
| If the argument for scheduling WG3 meetings to coincide with conferences
| is that people will travel to the conference anyway, it seems illogical
| to me that those meetings should then do substantive work that overlaps
| with the very conference we are attending!
Again, this is a discussion that should have taken place in February.
It's too late for this meeting, but I am planning a discussion in
Amsterdam on the whole question of whether or not we should plan our
future meetings around IDEAlliance conferences in the future. Your
input on that would be welcome.
Steve Pepper <email@example.com>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3