Dave, I was slightly surprised at a couple of points in your proposed document. I'd be curious to understand the thinking behind them. The most surprising was to allow evolving standards as part of a published recommmendation. Doesn't this undermine the idea of a profile as being a stable entity that implementations can build to with confidence that it won't change underneath them? Related to this was the removal of the "stable" term. If I understand the document correctly, an "evolving" spec only has to exist in a standards body; it doesn't necessarily have to be submitted to that body. In GGF terms, it doesn't have to be submitted as a proposed recommendation. Have I got that right? Or are you using "evolving" where previously we used "stable", and "draft" where we previously used "evolving"? I was also surprised that there are no constraints at all on the specs that can be included in an Informational Profile. I guess that makes sense. I was slightly surprised that no-one challenged this, but I suppose most people are interested in the recommendation profiles. I definitely want to allow the DAIS spec in the first data profile. This is partly the chicken and egg question; if a spec isn't in an OGSA profile, people will be less inclined to implement it. This is particularly applicable to the DAIS spec, because we want people to implement it as part of their DBMS systems, not as a standalone executable. (This is to avoid unnecessary copying of data in the implementations). Best wishes, Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039