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

[Harry Delugach]

On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 06:41  AM, Tanel Tammet wrote:
>>> 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.

That is my feeling exactly!

>
>>> 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.

On the one hand as Pat says, it's been five years, what's another year 
or two? My answer is: it's another year or two! If the draft were in 
almost-perfect shape for ISO right now, it would probably be 18 months 
to two years before it actually becomes a standard. So 2005 is the 
earliest it could happen. Wait another year for a reasonable draft and 
you have 2006, and so on...  how old do we want to be when the standard 
is finally approved?

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

I will gladly take you up on this offer, and send you the ISO templates 
when I get them.

>
>>> 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.

This is exactly the attitude that will get us a standard sooner, not 
later! Unfortunately as we all know, it is easier said than done.

Harry