[SCL] Fwd: Common Logic status with respect to standards

[Tanel Tammet]

Hi,

Pat Hayes wrote as an answer to Harry Delugach:
>> As many of you know, I've volunteered to serve as editor of the Common 
>> Logic standard that is being proposed to ISO. Having attended my first 
>> ISO meeting, I'd like to get the standards effort organized. So here 
>> are my thoughts. These are purely administrative notes; I will have a 
>> separate technical note in a day or two. Please don't overlook the 
>> last paragraph!
...
>> A working Draft (WD) needs to be submitted to WG2 for comments. It 
>> will be called ISO/IEC WD 24707. It must conform to ISO formatting 
>> standards, which basically means using a Word template. In order to 
>> get the process rolling, we will need a working draft for the INCITS 
>> L8 meeting in Washington on 17 Dec 2003.
> 
> 
> Suppose we do not make this deadline: what is the next possible date?

I see no immediate reason to skip this deadline on purpose:
we have a realistic chance of making it, if we try.

>> This will be a chance for the US part of the international group
> 
> What international group? Right now, SCL is being composed by a group 
> which I convened a little less than a year ago and which consists of a 
> small group of people all known to me. The Common Logic group is chaired 
> by Michael Uschold and I believe have not met or had any correspondence 
> for a year now.

In case Harry could help pushing SCL draft standard (assuming
we make it in time) to be the CL draft standard, this
would be a good thing, IMHO. Of course, it is not at
all clear this will work out, but maybe it will.

>> ACTION ITEMS:
>> - prepare a working paper (Working Draft is a specific ISO term) for 
>> the INCITS L8 meeting in mid December. This is the U.S. representative 
>> to ISO's Working Group. As editor, I will take the lead in keeping an 
>> "official" version.
> 
> 
> What exactly do you see your role as being? Our problem is that the 
> technical writers of the spec are all running on empty as far as spare 
> time is concerned, and the sheer effort of writing is likely to be our 
> main barrier. I tend to compose in HTML, so if you can transcribe this 
> into Word that would be a great help.

I will volunteer to do the translation to Word if this
Word thing turns out to be a barrier :-)

>> I consider it vital to reach consensus
> 
> 
> It is vital that we reach agreement, not necessarily consensus 
> agreement. To achieve consensus in this group may well be impossible and 
> is almost certainly NP-hard.

Right, but we can aim towards consensus by specifying
the lowest common denominator, and not putting extra
stuff or extra complexities into the core.

Regards,
        Tanel Tammet