<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Menzo,<br>
<br>
Thanks for sketching a middle-of-the-road approach. I'm sure
Andreas can at least try to give an answer to your question about
when a standard becomes closed, but whatever that point is, I have
two remarks:<br>
<br>
1. from an early draft stage where, according to your suggestion,
the CSC could perform a review, the standard can evolve quite
drastically, under the influence of the comments in the ballot and
directly from experts on the given committee. Given that, the CSC
may end up reviewing something that won't see the light of day,
eventually, because of the above-mentioned modifications.<br>
<br>
2. the general facility for namespace assignment was a
generalization of the immediate attempt to react to the "ISO
case"; the "ISO case" was/is an attempt by Andreas and myself to
gain some PR points for CLARIN while helping out the colleagues at
ISO. To be sure: it is _not_ the case that ISO is drowning and
CLARIN holds the only rope and can therefore dictate conditions.
CLARIN would gain more than ISO on this: (a) it would gain free
candy by sticking its name nearly automatically across potentially
several ISO standards, and (b) it would gain a nice showcase for
demonstrating that the proposed general facility for namespace
assignment is attractive and worthwhile for projects to ask for,
if ISO itself has used it. CLARIN +2, ISO +1 (it's not a
competition -- I'm talking in terms of gains on both sides)<br>
<br>
If CLARIN says now, "we'll give you a nice string that you can use
to promote us, but on the condition that we become super-reviewers
for what your expert group produces", then, in place of the person
in charge on the side of ISO, my response would be "why thanks a
lot, but we're gonna handle this ourselves, then". End of story,
CLARIN +0, ISO +0.<br>
<br>
That is why in a previous message, I attempted to draw a
distinction between an expert group on the one hand, where we
would only do a cursory check of the contents of the submitted
description for the resolved web page, and, on the other hand, a
more-or-less anonymous project, where indeed CLARIN should examine
whether that project attempts to win something merely by
impressing others with a clarin.eu-based namespace.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Piotr<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/24/17 11:19, Menzo Windhouwer2 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2A6CFBDA-0FE1-4E00-A3B1-83892E45B90C@meertens.knaw.nl">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New";
panose-1:2 7 3 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New",serif;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Courier",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hi,
Piotr, All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I
also agree that potentially CLARIN can provide a namespace
for a standard/recommendation/specification/…, that benefits
its community, but only if there is a chance for the
CSC/CLARIN to review the
standard/recommendation/specification/… to which CLARIN ties
its name.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">ISO
copyright issues might be a problem in the current "SynAF
Part 2" use case, which needs a more ad hoc decision, but
that should be an outlier. In general, I expect that
namespaces will already be needed in the drafts, and it
should be possible to make these drafts available for review
by the CSC/CLARIN. By the time the standard cannot be shared
anymore its purpose, scope and general (technical) shape
should be clear enough. Is there a clear stage<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
<a href="https://www.iso.org/stage-codes.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.iso.org/stage-codes.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">where
the draft is reasonably complete, it can still be shared and
CSC/CLARIN can decide about the namespace? If so that should
become part of TC37(/SC4)’s standard workflow.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">As
“CMDI part 2” is to be based on the CLARIN technical CMDI
spec [1], it would be natural to use a clarin.eu namespace.
However, we should still make a conscious decision there as
in the ISO standardization process the CLARIN spec and the
ISO standard might diverge …<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Menzo<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://office.clarin.eu/v/CE-2016-0880-CMDI_12_specification.pdf">https://office.clarin.eu/v/CE-2016-0880-CMDI_12_specification.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">--<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/cms/medewerkers/144709-menzowi">www.meertens.knaw.nl/cms/medewerkers/144709-menzowi</a></span><span
style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:standards-bounces@lists.clarin.eu"><standards-bounces@lists.clarin.eu></a>
on behalf of Daan Broeder
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:daan.broeder@meertens.knaw.nl"><daan.broeder@meertens.knaw.nl></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Sunday, 22 October 2017 at 12:08<br>
<b>To: </b>Piotr Banski <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:banski@ids-mannheim.de"><banski@ids-mannheim.de></a><br>
<b>Cc: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:standards@lists.clarin.eu">"standards@lists.clarin.eu"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:standards@lists.clarin.eu"><standards@lists.clarin.eu></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Standards] URGENT: namespace
strings, vote on whether I can forward the proposal to the
BoD<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Piotr, all. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think it’s fine if CLARIN would share
its namespace with a standard agency as ISO, but should (as
you suggest) keep control on what ends-up there.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That ‘control’ should I hope not take
much of the CSC's time, it should not act as a second review
pannel, it has, in the CLARIN context, far more urgent
things to do. (On that subject I was hoping that the first
CSC messages after Budapest would have been concerned with
more practical challenges wrt. interoperability and formats.
But I understand the window of opportunity aspect.)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">g.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">daan<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Daan
Broeder<br>
Tel. +31 20 4628625<br>
<a href="mailto:Daan.broeder@meertens.knaw.nl"
moz-do-not-send="true">Daan.broeder@meertens.knaw.nl</a><br>
Meertens Instituut (Afdeling Technische Ontwikkeling)<br>
Oudezijds Achterburgwal 185<br>
1012 DK Amsterdam<br>
<br>
Postbus 10855<br>
1001 EW Amsterdam<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 21 Oct 2017, at 00:37, Piotr
Banski <<a href="mailto:banski@ids-mannheim.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">banski@ids-mannheim.de</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Dieter,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the quick reaction, and especially for
a possible interpretation of your question that
you surely didn't intend, but that made me reflect
on the possible strategies of the CSC towards the
"requesting agencies" in cases like the hopefully
upcoming one concerning ISO. Maybe we can come up
with a sensible policy together.<br>
<br>
In the first step, let me shove ISO aside, because
the ballot I'm asking for right now does not
concern ISO (although the direct motivation for my
message came from what happened in a DIN telco).
It concerns the general policy of whether we want
to have a mechanism by which CLARIN regulates the
use of "<a href="http://clarin.eu"
moz-do-not-send="true">clarin.eu</a>"-based
namespace strings.<br>
<br>
(first remark: if I said "allow" anywhere before,
I think we should replace that word with
"regulate", because I don't think that this is a
matter of _permission_ unless "CLARIN" is a
registered trademark and there is a battery of
lawyers ready to be paid for fighting to enforce
that trademark in obscure namespace strings;
"regulate" would work great especially in
connection with a policy that requires an
informative web page to be associated with the
requested namespace URI)<br>
<br>
In the second step, I am now wondering if we
should by policy distinguish between (a) expert
bodies such as ISO committees, and especially a
committee with which a formal liaison exists,
hence an implied measure of trust that precludes
the CSC from playing a role of a potential
bottleneck in the ISO process, and (b) "other
bodies", where we might actually be entitled or
maybe even expected to play an expert role. I'm
wondering if such a distinction should be made
formally, or rather come up in the discussion of
individual cases, as in:<br>
<br>
Case (a):<br>
reporter: "TC37SC4 has requested a new namespace,
with the postfix 'maf/n1'"<br>
committee: "have they submitted text for the
corresponding web page? is it readable? if so,
proceed"<br>
<br>
Case (b):<br>
reporter: "Project XY has requested a namespace
for their XML vocabulary, with the postfix
'xy/fluff/n1'"<br>
committee: "What is Project XY? What centre is it
located in? Let's have a look at their suggested
info text, let's have a look at the project, and
then decide"<br>
<br>
It seems to me that leaving this kind of issues
for discussion might be a friendlier, and first of
all, a more flexible strategy than categorizing
the "requesting agencies" into "expert bodies" and
"non-expert bodies", because I am sure we could
stumble upon cases where even an act of such
pre-categorization could unnecessarily cause bad
blood.<br>
<br>
I would love to know the members' thoughts on
that.<br>
<br>
---------------------<br>
I shoved ISO aside at first, and now I'm reaching
into my hat again to pull it back out and address
the question on whether the CSC can look at the
specification that urgently needs a new namespace.
The answer is, to my mind, standard: ISO documents
at late stages in the ISO process can only be
shared within the ISO committee where they were
produced or its national mirror committees. When
preparing the liaison between CLARIN-ERIC and ISO
TC37SC4, Andreas Witt tried to bargain for a
modification of this rule, but as far as I recall,
there was no way to change this within category-A
liaison. Now that I'm looking at the relevant
section of ISO directives [1], I am wondering what
the beautifully vague statement that "Technical
committees and subcommittees shall seek the full
and, if possible, formal backing of the
organizations having liaison status for each
document in which the latter is interested" can
possibly entail. I don't think this is an escape
hatch (or a hidden lever), but maybe Andreas can
shed more light on this, at some point. For
practical purposes, however, it would seem strange
to me if we were to in a way challenge ISO to give
up its principles for the sake of a namespace
string in a standard produced by one subcommittee.
In my glass ball, I see ISO shrugging this request
away and allowing the standard to drop from the
publication process -- we wouldn't be hitting ISO
but rather SC4 experts, whose work would simply
turn out to have been in vain.<br>
<br>
The SC4 specification that is for sure affected by
the namespace issue is "SynAF Part 2" a.k.a "the
standard formerly known as ISO Tiger" [2], which
would probably be in print right now if not for
this last-minute hiccup. Another proposed standard
that may be at some point subject to this
predicament is... CMDI part 2 [3], and Thorsten
Trippel would surely be able to say if this
particular item would need a CLARIN-based
namespace -- but even if it doesn't require one,
what's important is that some of the affected
specifications are or may be rather important to
CLARIN itself, so we certainly want to be
accommodating and flexible here, rather than risk
creating a bottleneck.<br>
<br>
Apologies for this lengthy reply to a short
question :-) But I felt that there was a need to
tease two things apart at first, and that a space
was opening for a policy discussion concerning the
potential regulatory role of the CSC in the
namespace business.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Piotr<br>
<br>
[1]: <a
href="http://www.iso.org/sites/directives/directives.html#Section-sec_1.17.5"
moz-do-not-send="true">
http://www.iso.org/sites/directives/directives.html#Section-sec_1.17.5</a><br>
[2]: <a
href="https://www.iso.org/standard/62491.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.iso.org/standard/62491.html</a><br>
[3]: <a
href="https://www.iso.org/standard/64579.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.iso.org/standard/64579.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 20/10/17 18:11, Dieter Van Uytvanck wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>On 20/10/2017 17:12, Piotr Banski wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>the need for potential <a href="http://clarin.eu" moz-do-not-send="true">clarin.eu</a>-based namespace strings has become very<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>urgent and the ISO process will automatically delete the standards in<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>question (among them SynAF part 2, up till recently called "ISO Tiger"<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>but now rebranded not to use the "ISO" in the name)<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>Thank you for this proposal Piotr. Can you tell us where we can find a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>copy of the standard specification or proposal? Would be nice to know in<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>detail to which standard we are assigning the <a href="http://clarin.eu" moz-do-not-send="true">clarin.eu</a> namespace.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>best,<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Piotr Bański, Ph.D.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Senior Researcher,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Institut für Deutsche Sprache,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>R5 6-13<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>68-161 Mannheim, Germany<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Standards mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Standards@lists.clarin.eu"
moz-do-not-send="true">Standards@lists.clarin.eu</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.clarin.eu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/standards">https://lists.clarin.eu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/standards</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Piotr Bański, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher,
Institut für Deutsche Sprache,
R5 6-13
68-161 Mannheim, Germany</pre>
</body>
</html>