RE: [stdsreg] Call for Comment Package

Title: RE: [stdsreg] Call for Comment Package

Martin,

Thanks very much for your excellent suggestions.  I have incorporated your wording suggestions verbatim.  I've also included comments from Em and those from our most recent meeting, including Karen's suggestion that we provide a more clear description of the benefits of implementation for the SDO.  

To clarify the implementation options, I replaced the following text:

"Our primary deliverable is a standards metadata specification that can be used to describe the specifications that your organization develops. Our goal is to have each SDO (standards developing organization) describe their technical work using this metadata.  These metadata descriptions can, in turn, reside on the SDO web site or in various registries that list SDO specifications."

with this text:

"Deliverable and implementation

Our primary deliverable is a standards metadata specification that can be used to describe the specifications that your organization develops. Our goal is to have each SDO (standards developing organization) describe their technical work using this metadata standard.  

Once standards using this metadata specification have been described consistently across organizations, it will be far more efficient and far less costly to exchange information among organizations.  In turn, widespread adoption of a harmonized description of standards can facilitate improved searching for standards across distributed standards registries."

I'm hoping nobody has any objections to these wording changes regarding potential implementation and I'm going ahead with this change in the final version unless I hear an objection soon.

Thanks.

Bob H.

-----Original Message-----

From: Martin Bryan [mailto:]

Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 3:21 AM

To: Bob Hager; 'Standards Registry Mail List'

Subject: Re: [stdsreg] Call for Comment Package

Bob

Would suggest you change:

>This standards metadata specification

> has progressed sufficiently and therefore we are commencing with a public

> review.

To read "Our draft standards metadata specification is now being submitted

for public review, and we would like to solicit your organization's

assistance in this review process."

(I want to stress that the review need not be undertaken by the recipient

but by anyone in the organization.)

Also can be please remove the duplication and inconsistent spelling in

> This standards metadata specification was developed by the Standards

> Registry committee, and ad hoc group made up of a wide range of

> representatives from the standards community.  The Standards Registry

> Committee is an ad hoc committee and does not operate under the formal

> process of any other organization.

I would suggest that this should read:

This standards metadata specification was developed by an informal Standards

Registry Committee, an ad hoc group made up of a wide range of

representatives from the standards community.  The Standards Registry

Committee does not operate under the formal process of any organization.

Re

> Please submit your comments by replying to this e-mail (

> <mailto:>) on or before December 31, 2002.  As much as

> possible, be specific in citing which element or elements you are

commenting

> on.

is it possible to have comments sent to the stdsreg mailing list so that we

all see them?

Martin Bryan