[Accessforall] When is the next 24751 call ?

Liddy Nevile liddy at sunriseresearch.org
Tue Jul 2 18:24:15 EDT 2013


you may have funded projects but the task at hand for IS0 SC36 members  
is to do the best re-write of 24751 creating an online registry,  
because these are necessary if people are to be able to use the terms,  
and an application profile that conforms to 19788 as Part 3. What  
others want, or do, is actually not relevant unless it contributes to  
this activity.

I am not sure that funding of private groups for ISO standards  
development is acceptable, in fact. Nations pay to participate in ISO  
and they make the standards. Australia, for example, does not accept  
that people who are not even members of SC36 should be funded to make  
standards they want. I think this action is very questionable an I  
think that the funding bodies should not fund such projects. Quite a  
different matter if they were funding the development of the ISO  
standard .... but that is not the case here.

I would like to know what Erlend can tell us about this.

In the meantime, as a co-editor of Parts 1 and 2, I am looking forward  
to seeing a document that does what I think we were asked to do - as  
above. Decisions must be made by SC36 members, not the GPII group, or  
a CfAll or other group. I am very happy that other work is done  
elsewhere, but ISO work should be done according to ISO rules, IMHO.

So the next call?
  Whenever it is, please make sure we are told several days in advance  
as it often dictates more in our lives than just the meeting, and  
please have a clear agenda and stick to it. We have a very important  
and difficult job to do.

Please note that the email address for Helle has not been the correct  
address so she has not been receiving the emails....it is correct for  
this email


On 03/07/2013, at 1:12 AM, Treviranus, Jutta (Academic) wrote:

> As clarification (and I'll try to keep this brief). (Please see the  
> concluding proposal at the end of this message.)
> We are transitioning the ISO 24751 standard from a standard that  
> standardized the terms and information model to a standard with a  
> registration authority for the terms and "application profiles" as  
> additional parts. The proposed registration authority is GPII (of  
> which Cloud4All, FLOE, Prosperity4All are funded components).
> The GPII members are participating in the meetings to help plan the  
> formation of the registry. This plan would be reflected in Part 2 of  
> ISO 24751.
> We still have some minor and some substantive questions to resolve,  
> among these are:
> - whether or not there is a secondary process for stable or mature  
> terms or whether there is a metrics process with adjustments for  
> minority terms,
> - the minimum fields that must be included when submitting a  
> candidate term to the registry,
> - how to handle labels/alias's within the registry,
> and
> - the new name of the standard and the registry - there were some  
> objections to AccessForAll
> We could, at this point, create a draft standard for ISO review but  
> many of the decision makers and implementers of the proposed  
> registry, as Andy pointed out, are not national body representatives  
> within the ISO process.
> We could also use the email list or Wiki to receive and process  
> input on these questions rather than hold extensive synchronous  
> meetings. This may be the best way forward as many people have  
> uncertain schedules over the summer.
> My proposal therefore is that we tackle each of the open issues by  
> list and Wiki with focused questions sent to the group, including a  
> draft proposal regarding how to resolve the issue (or one or two  
> candidate resolutions), and a time-constrained period for input  
> through the list.
> Once we have dealt with the major issues that must to be resolved  
> before we can create an ISO draft, we complete the draft for ISO  
> review.
> We would therefore suspend synchronous meetings regarding the ISO  
> standard. (This does not obviate the meetings to plan and implement  
> the registry.)
> Any questions? Any objections to this proposed process?
> thanks
> Jutta
> On 2013-07-02, at 4:34 AM, Andy Heath <andyheath at axelrod.plus.com>  
> wrote:
>> Jutta,
>> If you still think we need substantial discussion (personally I'd  
>> like to see a lot more drafting of details and emailed comments on  
>> the drafts than not-so-focussed oral discussion) then I suggest you  
>> might do a doodle or whenisgood with availability for a regular  
>> general week time not a specific one.  I filled it in for the  
>> specific week requested last time and it happened to be a week when  
>> I had a number of calls and meetings I don't usually have - my  
>> availability is much greater usually - I have no idea how much my  
>> constraints were a factor.  Then if someone can't make it some  
>> particular week, well that's the way it rolls in groups that are  
>> not very small.
>> There are two things I don't understand about the plans here ...
>> 1. What is the purpose of doing all this quite academic discussion  
>> among editors outside of SC36 context - when we expose work to the  
>> wider audience in SC36 its going to be disassembled, dissected,  
>> discussed, re-worked, balloted, changed and so on - there is no  
>> guarantee that national bodies other than the ones that are  
>> actively involved as editors will accept the work without change.
>> 2. My understanding of the process was that the standard would be  
>> constructed around practices that had been implemented and tested  
>> inside the GPII framework (whatever that is) and that one project  
>> testing ideas here was C4ALL.  If we're all sitting around debating  
>> what are the correct ideas that should go into the standard then  
>> what was C4ALL for ?  Like some others I have given of my time and  
>> expertise freely to these meetings over a substantial period and  
>> I'm not sure why because it appears to me that we are discussing  
>> ideas we had before C4ALL anyway ? Can someone explain to me how  
>> C4ALL experience goes forward into this debate when we are  
>> discussing the foundations that we were led to believe that project  
>> was figuring out how to do and testing ?
>> andy
>>> I think I'd like a clear indication of what is to be published  
>>> when as a
>>> start to the two Parts of 24751, and a clear agenda for the  
>>> meetings. I
>>> like to attend the meetings because otherwise things get  
>>> fragmented and
>>> I get confused! I will agree to terrible times for the meeting in  
>>> order
>>> to have just one meeting - does that help??
>>> On my side, I am working hard to have a draft of Part 3 ready at  
>>> least
>>> for discussion at the Moscow meeting. This means having it published
>>> (within ISO) a few weeks before the meeting. I assume this is the  
>>> case
>>> for Parts 1 and 2 as well?
>>> Liddy
>>> On 01/07/2013, at 11:32 PM, Treviranus, Jutta (Academic) wrote:
>>>> The only times that had 2 or less people that could not make it  
>>>> were
>>>> 11am EDT/ on Wednesday and 10am or 11am on Thursday. The people
>>>> affected are Liddy and Madeleine on Thursday and Liddy and  
>>>> Gottfried
>>>> on Wednesday.
>>>> My proposal is to hold two  1 hour meetings at:
>>>> Wednesday at 11am EDT, 5pm CET, 1am Liddy time, 4pm Andy time, 10am
>>>> Gregg time, and
>>>> Friday at 8am EDT, 1pm CET, 10pm Liddy time, 7am Gregg time, noon  
>>>> Andy
>>>> time.
>>>> Does anyone have a better suggestion?
>>>> thanks
>>>> Jutta
>>>> Jutta Treviranus
>>>> Professor and Director
>>>> Inclusive Design Research Centre and Inclusive Design Institute
>>>> OCAD University
>>>> On 2013-07-01, at 8:43 AM, Liddy Nevile <liddy at sunriseresearch.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I'm confused too?????
>>>>> Liddy
>>>>> On 01/07/2013, at 9:58 PM, Andy Heath wrote:
>>>>>> Just a tad confused, maybe I missed some mails ?
>>>>>> andy
>>>>>> andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> __________________
>>>>>> Andy Heath
>>>>>> http://axelafa.com
>> andy
>> andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
>> -- 
>> __________________
>> Andy Heath
>> http://axelafa.com

More information about the Accessforall mailing list