From owner-sc22docs@open-std.org Thu Sep 27 07:57:46 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22docs-domo3 Delivered-To: sc22docs-domo3@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 22362D6BA6; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:57:46 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22info@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22docs@open-std.org Received: from exprod8og52.obsmtp.com (exprod8og52.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.86]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1207FD67ED for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:57:20 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from source ([12.14.39.3]) by exprod8ob52.obsmtp.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:57:19 PDT Received: from ny-exchange.ANSI.org ([10.1.3.29]) by ny-webmail.ANSI.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:57:18 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C800CB.42EEBD78" Subject: N 4284 - Report of the 27 September 2007 Breakout Session of the JTC 1/SC 22 Plenary in Singapore Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:57:11 -0400 Message-ID: <11169BEA3B01DA4887C61AF9BDA44E033CAD44@ny-exchange.ANSI.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: N 4284 - Report of the 27 September 2007 Breakout Session of the JTC 1/SC 22 Plenary in Singapore Thread-Index: AcgAyz7P47bKieTiSbiF0m+KZJufPg== From: "Sally Seitz" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2007 05:57:18.0165 (UTC) FILETIME=[42F32050:01C800CB] Sender: owner-sc22docs@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C800CB.42EEBD78 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces =20 Secretariat: U.S.A. (ANSI)=20 =20 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N4283 =20 TITLE:=20 Report of the 27 September 2007 Breakout Session of the JTC 1/SC 22 Plenary in Singapore =20 DATE ASSIGNED:=20 2007-09-27=20 =20 SOURCE:=20 Breakout Group =20 BACKWARD POINTER:=20 =20 DOCUMENT TYPE:=20 Meeting Report =20 PROJECT NUMBER:=20 =20 STATUS:=20 This document is circulated to SC 22 members for information.=20 =20 ACTION IDENTIFIER:=20 FYI=20 =20 DUE DATE:=20 N/A=20 =20 DISTRIBUTION:=20 text =20 CROSS REFERENCE:=20 =20 DISTRIBUTION FORM:=20 Open =20 _____________________________________end of cover page, beginning of report___________________________________ REPORT OF THE AD-HOC ON JTC 1 ISSUES =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 The ad-hoc on JTC 1 Issues was tasked to consider papers SC 22 N4236-N4243 inclusively. =20 Leader: Mr. Jonathan Hodgson =20 Membership: Mr. Kiyoshi Ishihata, Mr. Shizuo Goto, Mr. Nick Stoughton, Mr. Keld Simonsen, Mr. Roger Scowen, Mr. Stephen Michell, Mr. Rod Grealish, Mr. John Benito, Mr. Rex Jaeschke =20 N4236 IITRG =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The RG has produced a report on their review of Annex H of the directives, including the availability of tools, the relevance of the formats listed, and the availability of new format standards (JTC 1 N8762). =20 SC 22 is concerned that if IIT-RG is disbanded, there be a suitable mechanism identified for handling input from SCs regarding tools and other IT related matters. ITSIG could well be this mechanism. =20 Proposed resolution:=20 =20 Resolution 07-## JTC 1 IIT-RG =20 JTC 1/SC 22 supports the position stated in JTC 1 N8642 (SC 22 N4236). =20 JTC 1/SC 22 notes that its suggestion from resolution 06-32 on Open Document Format has been considered. ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) has been partially added to the reviewed annex H, in JTC 1 N8762, although the edits appear incomplete (for example table column disappears at page 14). JTC 1/SC 22 also encourages JTC 1 to make ISO/IEC 26300 a highly recommended rather than possible/plausible format in this table for "ISO/IEC Standard in preparation" and "Joint ISO/IEC and ITU-T Standard/Recommendation in Preparation". SC 22 also believes that ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) should be added to H4.1, before Microsoft Word. =20 =20 --------------------------------------------------- N4237 Statement on Cooperation =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 Several questions: =20 1. Are the current categories of liaison adequate with regards to the different needs for cooperation between SCs and consortia, SDOs, etc.? If not, which needs are not covered and how can they be covered? SC 22 response: SC 22 believes that the current three categories identified in 3.3.4.2 of the JTC 1 directives are adequate and sufficient. However, SC 22 also notes that it has one case where it is part of a cooperative development process with other entities that are not officially liaisons; namely the Austin Group, being the collective name for the triumviate of ISO/IEC SC 22, The Open Group, and The IEEE. =20 2. Do we need other ways of cooperating on standards development or information exchange? SC 22 response: The Austin Group joint development approach should be considered as a useful model for other groups to consider. =20 3. Do we manage our liaisons effectively? o Do experts actively participate on the meetings of liaison organisation? SC 22 response: Yes =20 o Do liaison organisations receive input on the SC's and WG's work and vice versa? SC22: Yes =20 o Can existing and potential liaison organisations easily find out current relevant information on the work of JTC1 and its SCs and WGs, etc. SC 22 response: Existing: Yes. Potential: No. Much of the work of JTC 1 and its SCs is kept protected, and a potential liaison will often find it hard or impossible to obtain the relevant information. =20 o How can we improve the process to ensure that contributions from liaison organisations are considered and responded to appropriately? SC 22 response: SC 22 encourages the use of a liaison co-ordinator as described in 3.3.4.4 for any organization that has mutliple liaisons. =20 o How can JTC1 and its SCs and WGs be more proactive in identifying and establishing appropriate liaisons? SC 22 response: SC 22 encourages JTC 1 and its SCs to be far more open in its business. SC 22 suggests that Annex HD of the directives be reviewed in the light of being more proactive in freely providing information for potential liaison origanizations. =20 4. What can we learn from other standards organisations? SC 22 response: We asked our liaisons for information: Ecma: Including non-profit origanizations into the process has proved extremely useful The Linux Foundation:=20 notes that making the document review process as wide open as possible, actively encouraging input from as many individuals as possible, has led to great improvements in the overall quality of documents produced. Austin Group:=20 concurrent development of documents by SC 22, IEEE and The Open Group has proved to be a useful, efficient, and successful alternative to the Fast-track/PAS process. (NB the Austin Group is not an official liaison origanization; see above). =20 Resolution to request chair to discuss these points during the breakout session as appropriate. =20 ----------------------------------------- N4238 Objectives =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 1. How is overall Business Planning being performed in its SC's, in other standard developing organizations (e.g. ISO, IEC, ITU-T, etc)? What can we learn/leverage from those experiences? =20 2. How well are the Business Plans of JTC 1 and its SCs synchronized and coordinated ? If not, how can the situation be improved? =20 3. Do the current Business Planning processes support the work of JTC 1 and its SCs? If not, how can the situation be improved? =20 4. How well does the operation of JTC 1 adhere to its Business Plan? =20 5. How can JTC 1 better fulfill its role and strategy as "System Integrator"? =20 SC 22 response: See comments on N4243 =20 ----------------------------------------- N4239 Promotion =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 1. Is JTC 1 informing the global business community about its standards and is JTC 1 making the standards the businesses want? =20 2. In the face of competition from alternative venues (international, regional national, formal and informal bodies), how can the value of JTC1 best be articulated? And how can that value be further enhanced? =20 3. What will it take to attract more of the standardization work in ICT to take place in JTC1? =20 SC 22 response: SC 22 believes that there may be a brand recognition problem with "ISO/IEC JTC 1". Subcommittees rarely see any benefit from JTC 1 itself, it is simply bureaucratic overhead. SC 22 agrees that it appears that the global business community is not fully aware of the benefits of developing standards in JTC 1 and encourages JTC 1 to address this problem by better marketing and branding. =20 ----------------------------------------- N4240 Tools =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 1. SC Reports SC 22 response: We have no input on this item. =20 2. Managing or coordination of cross-SC work Are the various alternative approaches sufficient to manage and co-ordinate cross-SC work efficiently? If not, how can be improved? SC 22 response: We believe that the various alternatives are theoretically adequate; however we have noted ongoing problems with our internal liaisons, and have resolved to monitor them closely and terminate or replace inactive liaison relationships as appropriate. =20 ----------------------------------------- N4241 Technology Watch =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 1. How well has SWG for Technology Watch met its original purposes and how can JTC 1 strengthen its function in the future? =20 2. Are SCs playing an appropriate role in Technology Watch? If not, what needs to be changed? How can Technology Watch be made more attractive for SC representatives? =20 3. Are workshops an effective mechanism for meeting the objectives of Technology Watch? Should they be complemented by other mechanisms? What mechanisms are they? =20 SC 22 response: SC 22 has played an active role in an equivalent position to the SWG on=20 Technology Watch, even though we did not call it that, and credits its=20 chair with directing us in this way. LSB, OWG-V and Standards Education are three examples of work items arising from this activity. =20 SC 22 has always undertaken these watching activities during ad-hoc breakout sessions from plenary meetings, but should consider having this as a standing activity. Considering appointing a "Technology Watch" officer. However, this is really the role of all NBs, with the chair acting as a coordinator. Encourage each NB to include a "Tech Watch" paragraph in their report. =20 Proposed Resolution: JTC 1/SC 22 encourages national bodies and external liaison organizations to include a "Technology Watch" item in their written reports, and requests JTC 1 to make available copies of Technology Watch reports and presentations for dissemination to SCs. =20 =20 ----------------------------------------- N4243 LTBP =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 1. Which objectives of the LTBP and activities of the LTBP Implementation Plan have been successful, which have failed? What are the reasons for success and failure? What is needed to improve the current situation? =20 2. Are there any objectives that are implied but not stated that need to be addressed? =20 3. Does JTC 1 have the right tools to perform the objectives described in the LTBP? If not, how can the current situation be improved? =20 4. How can we take advantage of the "Strategies" clause in JTC 1 and SC's Business Plans (especially the "risks" and "opportunities" sections) to identify issues to be addressed in the overall management of LTBP? =20 SC 22 response: Almost every WG reports concerns with particpation as a significant risk. SC 22 believes that the current planning methodology is probably working as well as it could. =20 The ad-hoc considered the following questions: Should JTC 1 establish a requirements specification group to guide WGs? Should JTC 1 establish a conformance testing subgroup? =20 SC 22 believes that the current requirments analysis methods employed by WGs appears to be adequate. "Bottom up" requirements analysis is generally more effective than "top down". Consider OSI (a top-down approach) which led to not only a failed set of standards, but ridiculed ones. =20 Resolution: SC 22 encourages JTC 1 to consider development paradigms for new standards that include joint development with other organizations, such as the methods currently successfully used within SC 22=20 with INCITS, Ecma, The Austin Group or Linux Foundation. =20 =20 =20 Sally Seitz Program Manager American National Standards Institute 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: 212 642 4918 Fax: 212 840 2298 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C800CB.42EEBD78 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ISO/IEC JTC = 1/SC22

Programming = languages, their environments and system software interfaces =

 

Secretariat:  = U.S.A.  (ANSI) =

 

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 = N4283

 

TITLE: =

Report of the 27 = September 2007 Breakout Session of the JTC 1/SC 22 Plenary in Singapore<= /font>

 

DATE ASSIGNED: =

2007-09-27 =

 

SOURCE: =

Breakout = Group

 

BACKWARD POINTER: =

 

DOCUMENT TYPE: =

Meeting = Report

 

PROJECT NUMBER: =

 

STATUS: =

This document is = circulated to SC 22 members for information.

 

ACTION IDENTIFIER: =

FYI =

 

DUE DATE: =

N/A =

 

DISTRIBUTION: =

text

 

CROSS REFERENCE: =

 

DISTRIBUTION FORM: =

Open

 

_____________________________________end of cover page, beginning of = report___________________________________

REPORT OF THE = AD-HOC ON JTC 1 ISSUES

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

The ad-hoc on JTC 1 = Issues was tasked to consider papers SC 22 = N4236-N4243

inclusively.

 

Leader:

Mr. Jonathan Hodgson

 

Membership:

 Mr. Kiyoshi = Ishihata, Mr. Shizuo Goto, Mr. Nick Stoughton, Mr. Keld

 Simonsen, Mr. = Roger Scowen, Mr. Stephen Michell, Mr. Rod Grealish,

 Mr. = John Benito, Mr. Rex = Jaeschke

 

N4236 = IITRG

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The RG has produced = a report on their review of Annex H of the = directives,

including the = availability of tools, the relevance of the formats = listed,

and the = availability of new format standards (JTC 1 N8762).

 

SC 22 is concerned = that if IIT-RG is disbanded, there be a suitable

mechanism = identified for handling input from SCs regarding tools and

other IT related = matters.  ITSIG could well be this mechanism.

 

Proposed = resolution:

 

Resolution 07-## = JTC 1 IIT-RG

 

JTC 1/SC 22 = supports the position stated in JTC 1 N8642 (SC 22 = N4236).

 

JTC 1/SC 22 notes = that its suggestion from resolution 06-32 on Open

Document Format has = been considered.  ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) has = been

partially added to = the reviewed annex H, in JTC 1 N8762, although

the edits appear = incomplete (for example table column disappears at

page 14). JTC 1/SC = 22 also encourages JTC 1 to make ISO/IEC 26300 a

highly recommended = rather than possible/plausible format in this = table

for "ISO/IEC = Standard in preparation" and "Joint ISO/IEC and = ITU-T

Standard/Recommendation in Preparation". SC 22 also believes that = ODF

(ISO/IEC 26300) = should be added to H4.1, before Microsoft Word.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

N4237 Statement on Cooperation

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

Several = questions:

 

1. Are the current categories of liaison adequate with regards = to

the different needs = for cooperation between SCs and consortia, = SDOs,

etc.? If not, which = needs are not covered and how can they be = covered?

      SC 22 = response:

      SC 22 believes that the current three categories identified in

      3.3.4.2 of the JTC 1 directives are adequate and sufficient.

      However, SC 22 also notes that it has one case where it is part

      of a cooperative development process with other entities = that

      are not officially liaisons; namely the Austin Group, being = the

      collective name for the triumviate of ISO/IEC SC 22, The Open

      Group, and The = IEEE.

 

2. Do we need other = ways of cooperating on standards development or

information = exchange?

  =     SC 22 response:

      The Austin Group joint development approach should be considered

      as a useful model for other groups to consider.

 

3. Do we manage our = liaisons effectively?

     o Do experts actively participate on the meetings of liaison = organisation?

            SC = 22 response:

            = Yes

 

     o Do liaison organisations receive input on the SC’s and WG’s work = and

        vice = versa?

            = SC22: Yes

 

     o Can existing and potential liaison organisations easily find out = current

        relevant information on the work of JTC1 and its SCs and WGs, = etc.

            = SC 22 response: Existing: Yes. Potential: No.  Much of

            = the work of JTC 1 and its SCs is kept protected, and a

            = potential liaison will often find it hard or = impossible

            = to obtain the relevant information.

 

     o How can we improve the process to ensure that contributions from = liaison

        organisations are considered and responded to appropriately?

            = SC 22 response:

            = SC 22 encourages the use of a liaison co-ordinator

            = as described in 3.3.4.4 for any organization that has

            = mutliple liaisons.

 

     o How can JTC1 and its SCs and WGs be more proactive in identifying = and

        establishing appropriate liaisons?

            = SC 22 response: SC 22 encourages JTC 1 and its SCs to

            = be far more open in its business. SC 22 suggests that

            = Annex HD of the directives be reviewed in the light of

            = being more proactive in freely providing information

            = for potential liaison origanizations.

 

4. What can we = learn from other standards organisations?

      SC 22 = response:

      We asked our liaisons for information:

      Ecma: Including non-profit origanizations into the process = has

            = proved extremely useful

      The Linux Foundation: =

            = notes that making the document review process as wide

            open = as possible, actively encouraging input from as = many

            = individuals as possible, has led to great improvements in

            the = overall quality of documents produced.

      Austin Group: =

            = concurrent development of documents by SC 22, IEEE and

            The = Open Group has proved to be a useful, efficient, and

            = successful alternative to the Fast-track/PAS process. = (NB

            the = Austin Group is not an official liaison origanization;

            see = above).

 

Resolution to = request chair to discuss these points during the breakout

session as = appropriate.

 

-----------------------------------------<= /p>

N4238 = Objectives

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

1. How is overall = Business Planning being performed in its SC’s,

in other standard = developing organizations (e.g. ISO, IEC, ITU-T,

etc)? What can we learn/leverage from those experiences?

 

2. How well are the = Business Plans of JTC 1 and its SCs synchronized

and coordinated = ?  If not, how can the situation be improved?

 

3. Do the current = Business Planning processes support the work of JTC

1 and its SCs? If = not, how can the situation be improved?

 

4. How well does = the operation of JTC 1 adhere to its Business = Plan?

 

5. How can JTC 1 = better fulfill its role and strategy as = “System

Integrator”?

 

SC 22 = response:

See comments on = N4243

 

-----------------------------------------<= /p>

N4239 = Promotion

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

1. Is JTC 1 = informing the global business community about its = standards

and is JTC 1 making = the standards the businesses want?

 

2. In the face of competition from alternative venues = (international,

regional national, = formal and informal bodies), how can the value of

JTC1 best be = articulated? And how can that value be further enhanced?

 

3. What will it = take to attract more of the standardization work in = ICT

to take place in = JTC1?

 

SC 22 = response:

SC 22 believes that = there may be a brand recognition problem with

"ISO/IEC JTC = 1".  Subcommittees rarely see any benefit from JTC 1 = itself,

it is simply = bureaucratic overhead.  SC 22 agrees that it appears = that

the global business community is not fully aware of the benefits = of

developing = standards in JTC 1 and encourages JTC 1 to address this

problem by better = marketing and branding.

 

-----------------------------------------<= /p>

N4240 = Tools

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

1. SC = Reports

SC 22 response: We = have no input on this item.

 

2. Managing or = coordination of cross-SC work

Are the various = alternative approaches sufficient to manage and = co-ordinate

cross-SC work = efficiently? If not, how can be improved?

SC 22 = response:

We believe that the = various alternatives are theoretically adequate;

however we have = noted ongoing problems with our internal liaisons, = and

have resolved to = monitor them closely and terminate or replace = inactive

liaison = relationships as appropriate.

 

-----------------------------------------<= /p>

N4241 Technology = Watch

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<= o:p>

 

1. How well has SWG = for Technology Watch met its original purposes = and

how can JTC 1 = strengthen its function in the future?

 

2. Are SCs playing = an appropriate role in Technology Watch? If not, = what

needs to be = changed?  How can Technology Watch be made more = attractive

for SC = representatives?

 

3. Are workshops an effective mechanism for meeting the objectives = of

Technology = Watch?  Should they be complemented by other mechanisms? = What

mechanisms are = they?

 

SC 22 = response:

SC 22 has played an = active role in an equivalent position to the SWG on =

Technology Watch, = even though we did not call it that, and credits its =

chair with = directing us in this way. LSB, OWG-V and Standards = Education

are three examples = of work items arising from this activity.

 

SC 22 has always = undertaken these watching activities during ad-hoc

breakout sessions = from plenary meetings, but should consider having = this

as a standing = activity. Considering appointing a "Technology = Watch"

officer. However, = this is really the role of all NBs, with the chair

acting as a = coordinator. Encourage each NB to include a "Tech = Watch"

paragraph in their = report.

 

Proposed = Resolution:

JTC 1/SC 22 = encourages national bodies and external liaison = organizations

to include a "Technology Watch" item in their written reports, and = requests

JTC 1 to make = available copies of Technology Watch reports and = presentations

for dissemination = to SCs.

 

 

-----------------------------------------<= /p>

N4243 = LTBP

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

1. Which objectives = of the LTBP and activities of the LTBP = Implementation

Plan have been = successful, which have failed? What are the reasons for

success and = failure? What is needed to improve the current situation?

 

2. Are there any = objectives that are implied but not stated that need

to be = addressed?

 

3. Does JTC 1 have = the right tools to perform the objectives described

in the LTBP? If = not, how can the current situation be improved?

 

4. How can we take = advantage of the “Strategies” clause in JTC 1 = and

SC’s Business = Plans (especially the “risks” and = “opportunities”

sections) to = identify issues to be addressed in the overall management

of = LTBP?

 

SC 22 = response:

Almost every WG = reports concerns with particpation as a significant = risk.

SC 22 believes that = the current planning methodology is probably working

as well as it = could.

 

The ad-hoc = considered the following questions:

Should JTC 1 = establish a requirements specification group to guide = WGs?

Should JTC 1 = establish a conformance testing subgroup?

 

SC 22 believes that = the current requirments analysis methods employed = by

WGs appears to be = adequate. "Bottom up" requirements analysis is = generally

more effective than "top down". Consider OSI (a top-down = approach)

which led to not = only a failed set of standards, but ridiculed = ones.

 

Resolution:

SC 22 encourages = JTC 1 to consider development paradigms for new

standards that = include joint development with other organizations,

such as the methods currently successfully used within SC 22

with INCITS, Ecma, = The Austin Group or Linux Foundation.

 

 

 

Sally = Seitz

Program Manager

American National Standards = Institute

25 = West 43rd Street, 4th = Floor

New = York, NY 10036

Tel: 212 642 4918

Fax: 212 840 2298

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C800CB.42EEBD78--