Some progress on Actions 336 (announcements, press, etc.) and 337 (ISO and our workgroup operations) I spoke with Bill Ash, ISO/JTC1/SC38 Committee manager. These are my notes relative to Action 336 and 337, interspersed into the questions list email threads: This action item is about how we operate our workgroup going forward, and
how that evolves now that we're an ISO/IEC standard as well as an OGF one.
I believe we will need to create a workgroup document describing these new practices, particularly when they augment/vary some of the standard OGF practices.
The OGF practices and processes were approved as part of the PAS application for OGF. No changes are required in this. I think we don't need a new practices document.
- When can we update OGF web sites, WIkipedia, blogs/news, X/Twitter, and other web content to announce and reflect our ISO status?
Now.
- Are there branding guidelines for how one does this in conformance with ISO practices/policy? E.g., must use specific phrasing, must cite specific trademarks or such? Are there official logos we are supposed to use? (Or rules about when we can use those or are not to use them, etc.)
Yes, but not very strict. As far as announcements or publicity around the
ISO recognition of our standard, and any promotion or web-page changes mentioning ISO, JTC1, etc. - There is guidance online. But the policy isn't that only they can use their logos. I believe we could update OGF pages to reflect our PAS status and highlight our ISO involvement, and we could use the ISO logos to make that look snapier and more official. In general, they want notification about anything coming out mentioning ISO or ISO standards or processes, but it's not a pre-approval process. One can use ISO logos and such - they have official ones that they will send out on request - you don't just grab them off a web page. There is a JTC1 Communications Committee that can amplify any Workgroup news/announcements. They put out a periodic (quarterly?) newsletter.
- Can/should we update the cover of the OGF DFDL spec (GFD.240) on the OGF web site to reflect the ISO PAS status?
Our draft documents are not ISO documents so shouldn't have those sorts of
markings. They are still OGF workgroup documents until ISO member countries vote to approve them.
- Typography: I assume we have to revise the OGF Spec to match Standard ISO format (Beyond just A4 page size) so future versions come out in that conforming style. - Once we do this I don't want to be maintaining an OGF flavor and an ISO flavor of the formatting.
Correct. First re-spin/revision should become ISO format. (Calabria font
is standard)
- Does a preliminary working document of the DFDL workgroup have to be specifically marked as such (so that it is clearly preliminary)? What are these markings?
What we do now is fine. OGF practices here are fine.
- If that is done without revisions of content from current OGF content, would that replace the current ISO-provided document (which is just a new cover page on our existing OGF GFD.240 document) or does that wait for a content revision?
Several other workgroups also have the problem of MS-Word being inadequate
going forward. Bill Ash will put us in contact with Jim Milton of the SQL workgroup which has an XML-based document workflow they use to create the ISO-formatted document from an XML source. One must request permission to submit a PDF version without the editable MS-Word flavored version. Other groups do this routinely.
- Who are contacts within JTC1 ? Does the OGF Workgroup contact JTC1 by way of OGF leadership or directly? (or... what is the chain of command here? Don't want to be jumping across protocol boundaries!)
Bill Ash, ISO/JTC1/SC38 Committee manager. He is our contact for now for
questions, and will relay us to the other people we need to work with - communications, other workgroups, etc. re: mailing lists - There are no mailing lists to subscribe to. ISO sends info to liasons, who send it on to their organizations. Wolfgang Ziegler is the OGF liason to ISO so outbound communications from ISO, JTC1, SC38 will all go to him, and he will forward relevant information to us.
- Is there a TC within JTC1 that we should work more closely with? Right away? Eventually? Need contacts there.
We can look at other workgroups and we can get access to their working
documents on request (because we are a "Class A" PAS Submitter organization). Bill Ash mentioned SC32 (data related - SQL, etc.)
- In 6 years a PAS is supposed to become an International Standard. What does that mean? Does PAS status end? Does OGF participation end, or does the workgroup merge into a TC? Or is this just a status change assuming things are going well?
This seems misstated on the ISO web site. There is a 6 year systematic
review where all standards are reviewed to confirm their status, revise, or withdraw them. That includes PAS standards. This is the 6 year cycle they are referring to. Every 6 years each standard is re-confirmed as still relevant as an ISO standard. It's not a change of status from PAS to non-PAS or of workgroup structure or organization.
- Day to day working group activity/meetings - is there guidance about notes/minutes-taking, etc. (templates)?
No. Our existing practices are pre-approved as part of PAS status. There
is an ISO template used by some ISO workgroups, but we aren't one of those, we're a PAS submitter workgroup.
- Such time as we have revisions to the document, how do we engage with ISO to get an update to the PAS document? Are these voted? - What about just typographical corrections? - Thoughts: Do we just use the OGF process for updates/corrections and then just submit the changes to JTC1 (some TC?) for consideration?
As far as preliminary working documents and such, we follow standard OGF
processes. When we are ready for an update to the ISO document, the PAS review process is re-run just as it was for the first version of the DFDL spec., except we would provide additional information highlighting what changed (to save reviewers time). Things don't get marked as ISO standards until the member countries vote. That's the vote that counts. ISO workgroups operate by consensus - a consensus generally means lack of sustained objection. At ISO, workgroups don't "vote", member countries do. Of note: ISO has a digital artifacts archive - this allows things like a machine-readable version of the specification to be part of the publication and review process, and for them to have official status as part of a standard. This is the opposite of policies that state that "only the document is normative". One can have other digital artifacts that are reviewed and have official status as part of an ISO standard. This is something we may want to take advantage of eventually. This allows, for example, an official DFDL schema for some data format to be part of an ISO standard without having to be a printed part of a document. -mike beckerle Mike Beckerle OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | www.ogf.org/dfdl Apache Daffodil PMC | daffodil.apache.org Owl Cyber Defense | www.owlcyberdefense.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>