(j3.2006) [Fwd: [incits-ct22] FW: For Action SC22 N4194, Draft procedure for comments]

[Malcolm Cohen]

Dan Nagle said:
> The attached document discusses writing technical standards
> as databases.  I haven't yet read it carefully enough
> to have views of its affect on J3.  But it might be mischief.

Unless SC22 has a sudden rush of blood to the head and decides it
wants to turn IS 1539 into a database, it ought to have no effect.

On the document itself:
 - it does not seem to conform to the ISO directives in a number
   of aspects;
 - it seems somewhat disorganised, e.g. the definition of terms
   seems to be rather haphazardly ordered.  Disordered even.
 - the timeframes seem rather short: e.g. in the "extended" procedure,
   the "secretary" only has 2-4 weeks for DIS and FDIS preparation.
   Unless the database is small (and/or the standard is simple), that
   seems unduly optimistic.
 - the "normal" procedure doesn't have any effective NB review.  It
     "is typically applicable for changes to or for the withdrawal of
      existing items or for new items within the scope of the database
      standard or in cases where there is an urgent need for
      standardization"
   which is castly the net rather widely, and the National Bodies
   don't get to vote on it, they only get "informed".  Only the
   Validation Team gets to vote, and there is only 2 months between
   start of ballot and end of ballot.  (Hardly time for a P-member
   to review anything, much less convince the Validation Team to vote
   against if they have a problem.)

Perhaps this "standard as a database" thing is only going to be used
for trivial stuff, in which case it hardly matters.  I would be alarmed
if it was done for nontrivial stuff (e.g. the OOXML schema).

Cheers,
-- 
........................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm at nag-j.co.jp), Nihon NAG, Tokyo.