Subject: CORRECTED SC22 N2498 - SGFS Report and Questionnaire

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:29:44 -0400 (EDT)

(Note: The original transmittal had an incorrect title on the title page
- the message subject line was correct.  This corrects that.  Aside from
the title change on the title page, no other changes have been made.)

____________________beginning of title page ________________________
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces
Secretariat:  U.S.A.  (ANSI

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
N2498

July 1997

TITLE:
JTC 1/SGFS Report and Questionnaire

SOURCE:
Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

WORK ITEM:
N/A

STATUS:
N/A

CROSS REFERENCE:
N/A

DOCUMENT TYPE:
N/A

ACTION:
To SC22 Member Bodies for information.

To WG15 for consideration.

Address reply to:
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat
William C. Rinehuls
8457 Rushing Creek Court
Springfield, VA 22153 USA
Tel:  +1 (703) 912-9680
Fax:  +1 (703) 912-2973
email:  rinehuls@access digex. net

_________________end of title page; beginning of questionnaire _____

Title	: Questionnaire for the SGFS Liaison Organizations on their 
          profiling activities
Source	: ISO/IEC JTC1/SGFS Plenary Meeting, May 1997, London, UK
Status	: For consideration and response by the SGFS Liaison Organizations

There are strong indications that the activity on functional standardization 
within JTC1 is entering a new phase:
- the change in membership from P-member to O-member by the USA, 
Germany and Australia. Two of these countries (USA and Germany) had 
a leading role within SGFS from the beginning.
- the Regional Workshops, as `feeder-organizations' of SGFS, are 
changing their directions. The question remains open whether they still 
require a separate body within JTC1 as a channel to internationally 
harmonize, approve and publish profiles within ISO/IEC.
- while it seems that the interest in profiling itself outside JTC1 does not 
decrease, SGFS has noted that during the past two years the interest in the 
formal standardization of profiles within ISO/IEC has decreased.

Consequently SGFS considered the future evolution of functional 
standards within JTC1. Some preliminary conclusions on this issue are 
presented to the JTC1 Ad Hoc on Re-engineering in document 
SGFS N1422 (appended to this document). 

However, in order to finalize these conclusions (and, if necessary, to 
prepare an orderly transition to a future structure of work), SGFS needs to 
know what its `customers' require in the near or long term future. SGFS, 
therefore, is requesting responses from the Regional Workshops, its A-, 
B-, C- and S-liaisons organizations the relevant SCs/TCs, and ITU-T on 
the following questions:

Q1: Which profiles are you planning to submit in the short term for 
approval by SGFS/JTC1? The answer to this question is particularly 
important for the assessment of the amount of work to be done during a 
transition period, and the length of this period.

Q2: Do you feel that there continues to be a need for profiling activities? 

Q3: If so, do you see value in the formal standardization of (i.e., to 
publish) profiles through ISO/IEC? 

Q4: Do you see a continuing value in the guidelines and taxonomy, as 
presented in TR 10000, and consequently, in the maintenance of that 
document?

Q5: If there is value in the standardization of profiles through ISO/IEC, is 
there a need for publishing the documents as ISPs? Would an IS (if there 
are conformity requirements in the profile) or a TR (for a profile without 
conformity requirements) satisfy your needs?

Q6: If there is a need for publishing ISPs through ISO/IEC, should there 
be a separate body (SGFS) to channel the ISP into JTC1, or would  the 
PAS-procedures be appropriate for the submission of your profiles to 
JTC1 for approval? If  SGFS is disbanded, would you consider becoming 
a PAS-submitter for ISPs?

In order to provide JTC1 with all relevant information for the planning of 
the future of functional standardization within JTC1, answers on the 
above questions (as detailed as possible) are requested to be sent to the 
SGFS Secretariat no later than 31 August 1997. It should be noted that a 
lack of response to the questions will be interpreted as a (possibly very 
valid) absence of interest in the continuation of functional standardization 
within ISO/IEC JTC1.

_____________end of questionnaire; beginning of report ________________

Title: 	ISO/IEC JTC1/SGFS Report to the JTC1 Ad Hoc on Re-engineering 
        about future activities on functional standardization within JTC1
Source: ISO/IEC JTC1/SGFS Plenary Meeting, May 1997, London, UK
Status:	For consideration by the JTC1 Ad Hoc on Re-engineering

Current situation 

There are strong indications that the activity on functional standardization
within JTC1 is entering a new phase:
- the change in membership from P-member to O-member by the USA, 
Germany and Australia. Two of these countries (USA and Germany) had a 
leading role within SGFS from the beginning.
- the Regional Workshops, as `feeder-organizations' of SGFS, are changing 
their directions and it is an open question whether they still require a 
separate body within JTC1 as a channel to internationally harmonize, 
approve and publish profiles within ISO/IEC.
- while it seems that the interest in profiling itself outside JTC1 remains
high, SGFS has noted that during the past two years the interest in the formal 
standardization of profiles through ISO/IEC has decreased.

At the same time the JTC1 Ad Hoc on Re-engineering requested SGFS to report 
on the status and the viability of its work program relative to the
re-engineering of JTC1. 

Consequently SGFS has considered the future evolution of functional 
standardization  within JTC1 and has come to the preliminary conclusion 
presented below. 

In order to finalize these conclusions, SGFS needs to know what its `customers' 
require in the near or long term future. SGFS, therefore, is requesting, in
doc. SGFS N1421, responses from the Regional Workshops, A-, B-, C- and
S-liaisons, the relevant SCs/TCs,  and ITU-T on such issues as: 
- their continued interests in profiling, 
- any current work in progress to be submitted as ISPs, 
- their long term interest in standardizing profiles in JTC1, and 
- the value to them of the taxonomy principles and documentation guidelines 
in TR10000.

Responses are requested by the end of August 1997 so that the information is 
available at the JTC1 Plenary in September 1997 in Ottawa, Canada.

Preliminary conclusions

1. The concept of profiling , see doc. JTC1 N4586 (SGFS N1410)

The concept of a profile (of standards), as the specification of the use
together of a number of standards either to address a specific requirement
or to support a particular area of IT applications, is widely accepted and
is seen as applicable not only to ISO/IEC standards but also to publicly
available specifications (PAS). Profiling activity takes place not only
in the context of the ISP process through the Regional Workshops, ISO TCs
and SGFS, but also in industrial consortia such as The Open Group and POSC,
trade associations and other fora. 

Thus, profiling is widely seen as necessary and effective in defining
commonality of computing environments in order to facilitate application
portability, and in specifying requirements on systems to enable
interoperability.  In particular it seems likely within JTC1 that profiling
will have an important place in the work of Business Teams and activity on GII.

2. Role of ISPs 

An ISP is a specific type of ISO document that has been created for the
purpose of publishing approved International Standardized Profiles. The
question raised in this section is whether this publication means will
still be useful in the future, and whether the ISP process should be kept
or discontinued.

An ISP provides a way of documenting a profile that defines how `higher' 
functionality can be achieved by combining functionality from individual base 
standards (and ISPs). A number of important aspects can be identified as being 
the added value of an ISP :

- the identification of the base standards plus their selected options that 
together ensure the functionality of the profile.

- an unique (taxonomy) profile identifier through which the profile can be 
referenced. This identifier not only eases the construction of a catalogue of 
profiles, but also allows, assuming that an appropriate methodology to 
generate the profile identifiers is used, the identification (and the relative 
position) of the profile within a taxonomy: this may imply architectural 
choices for the ISP environment.

- a more precise conformance statement - in order to achieve conformance to 
the `higher' functionality, simple conformance to each of the individual 
base standards is usually not enough. This conformance statement does not 
contradict the one present in base standards, but it may add constraints to a 
product already conforming to the base standard.

- documentation of testing requirements - when combining various 
specifications, testing of the complete functionality becomes an issue that 
cannot be solved by simply testing the individual base standards. 

An ISP brings together all the above aspects in a single document, ratified and 
published by ISO/IEC. The harmonization process, as part of the lightweight 
process to adopt ISPs through SGFS (similar to the PAS process) is designed to 
ensure the direct submission of draft ISPs that reflect the market needs
(i.e. there is no new work item procedure and development process within
SGFS itself).

Despite the value of the document structure that it provides, ISPs themselves
have not received the wide recognition and it is not clear whether the
concept of ISPs (as a specific kind of standards document) will be useful
in the future. In the long term it is up to the JTC1 `customers' to answer
this question.

At the same time it should be recognised that the ISP approval process,
with the associated concept of S-liaisons, was set up to channel profiles
from the Regional Workshops to JTC1 through SGFS. The PAS procedures now
provide an equivalent process through which profiles from outside JTC1 can
be submitted and organizations wishing to submit profile specifications for
standardization can use the PAS-submitters entrance. 

3. The next phase in functional standardization within JTC1

The way SGFS has operated as a body within JTC1 to internationally harmonize, 
approve and publish ISPs has been very successful and efficient (see doc. JTC1 
N4586 = SGFS N1410). However, a number of elements suggest that its current 
role is no longer required:

- the completion of TR10000 - making available a taxonomy and architecture 
for profiling activities; 

- the prospect that the current major programme of ISP development is nearly 
finished;  

- the availability of PAS procedures as a route for the direct submission of 
profile specifications for standardization; 

- the fact that NB support for a separate group on functional standardization 
is coming to an end.

At the same time it remains true that profiles produced within JTC1 itself can 
become internationally harmonized standards by using the IS or TR approval 
procedures.  

Thus, it is concluded that steps should be taken to bring the current SGFS 
activities to an orderly end, and to incorporate functional standardization
as a part of normal JTC1 activities. SGFS should then be dissolved unless
NBs identify the need for specific new initiatives on profiles and profiling,
and the necessary resources are made available.   

The steps to be taken are:

a) in the short term:
- process remaining ISPs (already submitted or identified through 
responses to SGFS N1421) through the existing procedures by the SGFS 
secretariat and the SGFS chair;
- finalize TR10000 Part 1, 2 and 3 as a consistent set of documents;
- establish requirements for a WWW-site presenting JTC1^Rs activities on 
functional standardization in the long-term;
- establish, in collaboration with ISP submitters, maintenance mechanisms 
for published ISPs;
- identify any responsibilities which should be transferred to other groups 
(e.g. Regional Workshops). 

b) in the long term:
- identify profiling as an integral part of JTC1 activity, to be carried out 
through the PAS process or through normal SC activities;
- amend the JTC1 Directives to include guidelines for the standardization 
of profiles - taking into account the provisions of TR 10000;
- encourage profile developers to apply to become PAS submitters.

These actions are intended to bring  about the closure of current SGFS
activities in an orderly fashion, ensuring the transfer of competencies to
other JTC1 bodies (e.g. Business Teams, SCs  etc.) and marking the beginning
of a new era of collaboration with other JTC1/TCs and other bodies as PAS
submitters such as - but not limited to - the Regional Workshops. JTC1
Reengineering process is requested to support this process.

______________________end of SC22 N2498 ___________________________