still not getting bold or underline, but ran a
comparison of two docs using Word and in addition to what I cited below, I found
the following (Word spits out a lot of non-changes like paragraph returns which
confuses matters, so let me know if I didn't get them all"
+
"...describe the standards developed by a wide range..."
+ "...committee,
an
ad hoc..."
+ "...are
there too many (or too few) elements?" (yikes, that's a bad
one)
+ "...are the definitions of the elements
clear?..." (don't tell my mother about this
error)
+ and, as I said before....the
addition of "+ other considerations in the deployment
and maintenance of the registries based on this metadata specification?" under
section about submitting your comments.
I have made all these suggested changes
already to the original. Thanks again, Em. Great input.
BH
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:]
Sent:
Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re:
[stdsreg] Call for Comment Package
Comments are underlined and in
bold.
---------------------- Forwarded by Em G
Delahostria/Cleveland/RA/Rockwell
on 09/11/2002 10:01 AM
---------------------------
Thanks, Em. I can't see the red but it
appears that your only comment is
to add
"+ other considerations
in the deployment and maintenance of the
registries
based on this metadata
specification?" under section about submitting your
comments.
is this
correct?
Em G Delahostria
09/11/2002 09:49
AM
To: Bob Hager
<>
cc:
Subject: Re: [stdsreg]
Call for Comment Package (Document link: Em
G
Delahostria)
Comments in
red.
Bob Hager <> on 09/11/2002 08:34:40
AM
To: "'Standards Registry Mail List'"
<>
cc:
Subject:
[stdsreg] Call for Comment Package
Below is the draft text I
have prepared that will constitute the body of
the e-mail used to introduce
our public review. I included Karl's input
(with some modifications)
and added detail about the specification itself,
the types of comments we are
seeking, and the mechanism for providing
comments.
My recommendation
is that any further comments on either v3.0 or the
introduction to the public
review package be made by committee members by
Sept 17. In the mean
time, John K. and I will continue to refine our
distribution lists (we have
done some of this already) and work to get the
review package to all
recipients by no later than Sept 30, thus allowing
for a 90 day public review
from Oct 1-Dec 31. John: I think you'll need
to send me your
final e-mail list so that all packages can be sent out from
the same e-mail
(mine), thus facilitating consistent replies.
I believe the remaining
steps for public review are as follows:
+ Post v3.0 spec to our
standards registry web page for download. I will
do this today so that
Francois can use the current text of the introduction
and point to the spec
for his JTC1 deadline.
+ Update the document register on our web
page
+ I recommend we remove #2 of the Charter on our web
page: "Selection of
a taxonomy that can be used to classify each SDO's
specifications." We
have agreed that this is no longer one of our
goals.
+ John K. and Bob H. coordinate on getting packages out to
all relevant
parties.
Here is my proposed introductory
text:
CALL FOR COMMENT
on a Standards Metadata
Specification
Comments Due by Dec 31, 2002
Dear Standards Developing
Organization Representative:
We are soliciting your comments on a
specification for standards metadata.
Metadata is "data about data".
The most common example of metadata is the
information you would find on a
library index or catalog card: Title,
Author, Publisher, etc. In
this case, it is a set of fields (elements)
that can be used to describe the
standards developed by a wide range of
standards developing
organizations. This standards metadata specification
has progressed
sufficiently and therefore we are commencing with a public
review. In
order to ensure widespread use of this specification, it is
important that we
receive input from as many different standards developing
organizations as
possible.
The Standards Registry Committee
This standards metadata
specification was developed by the Standards
Registry committee, an 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. More
information about the Standards
Registry Committee may be found at <
http://www.ansi.org/Public/Stdsreg/stdsreg.html>,
including meeting
minutes, mail list archive, draft documents, and
presentations.
Our goals
The primary goal of the Standards
Registry Committee has been to develop a
metadata specification that will
promote the exchange of information
between organizations developing
standards and other consensus documents.
Our further goal is to make
available to the public more coherent and
systematic information about these
organizations' activities. Furthermore,
this effort is intended
to:
+ increase collaboration between standards developing
organizations;
+ encourage the development of interoperable
specifications;
+ increase participation in standards efforts;
and
+ encourage adoption of completed specifications by
users.
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.
Benefits for SDOs and Users
The benefit in
using this metadata specification for your organization and
other SDOs is
that you can more easily discover what other organizations
are working on,
which will lead to an increase in cooperative efforts and a
reduction of
duplicate work.
The benefit to users and implementers of your
specifications is that they
can more easily find out what specifications are
being developed by SDOs
and therefore increase their involvement in standards
development efforts
of interest to them. This will subsequently
increase the quality and
adoption of specifications.
More about the
specification
To date, the standards metadata specification consists of a
list of 16
fields or elements that is entitled "Standards Metadata Element
Set, v3.0".
These elements are closely harmonized with the Dublin Core
Metadata Element
Set, Version 1.1 (<http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/>).
More general
information about the Dublin Core initiative can be found at
<
http://dublincore.org/>. Each element
is further described by a set of
attributes (also based on Dublin Core
Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1).
The "Definition" and "Comment"
attributes provide most of the detail
regarding the intended use of each
element and may also suggest usage
issues that require further
exploration.
This Standards Metadata Element Set, v3.0 can be downloaded
at (INSERT
URL). It is available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. In
order to read PDF
files, you will need to install the free Acrobat PDF Reader
application
available at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
Submitting
your comments
We are primarily interested in learning if the Standards
Metadata Element
Set, v3.0 is adequate to describe your standards development
work.
Specifically, it would be very helpful to know the
following:
+ are there too many (or too few) elements?
+
are the definitions of the elements clear?
+ what specific challenges
you anticipate in the use of these elements as
they are currently
described?
+ other considerations in the deployment and maintenance of
the registries
based on this metadata specification?
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.
Thank you in advance for
your valuable input.
The Standards Registry
Committee
