Editor's note: These minutes have not been edited.
Date: 22 Dec 95 15:11:37 EST
From: R.PETKE@csi.compuserve.com
Subject: Minutes of the URC BOF - Dallas
Minutes for URC BOF, 12/07/95, Dallas
Chair: Rich Petke (r.petke@csi.compuserve.com)
Minutes: Billy Barron (billy@utdallas.edu), John Noerenberg
(jwn2@qualcomm.com), Rich Petke (r.petke@csi.compuserve.com)
BOF to WG Transition
--------------------
The first item of business was to determine if there was enough
interest in URCs to justify the formation of a working group. Of the
50 or so people present (blue sheet count plus others who did not sign
the sheet), about 75% indicated that they had a specific interest in
URCs; the remaining folks indicated that they were filling an empty
time slot and/or were interested in learning more about URCs. About
30% of those present indicated that they were subscribed to the URC
discussion list.
URC discussion list: urc@list.gatech.edu
To subscribe: subscribe urc <name> to listproc@list.gatech.edu
Archive: http://www.gatech.edu/iiir/urc
The chair briefly summarized the events which lead up to this BOF.
Working Group Charter (and Milestones)
--------------------------------------
The current draft of the proposed charter for the working group (draft
number 5) was presented and the floor was opened for discussion.
(The charter had been discussed previously on the URC discussion list.)
The following points were made:
o SGML should not be assumed or explicitly stated in the charter as
it may be too limiting. The suggestion was accepted.
o The creation of a requirements document needs to be included in
the working group's milestones. The suggestion was accepted.
o The creation of a glossary of terms needs to be included in the
working group's milestones. The suggestion was accepted.
o The working group should not allow itself to become bogged down
by defining semantics. A few semantics, such as for URLs, will
have to be defined but the working group should steer clear of
attempting to define grand, all encompassing schemes.
o Searching attributes, beyond some minimal specification required
for interoperability, is out of scope for this working group.
o The working group will not talk about synchronization.
o No discussion of protocols to be used to exchange URCs should be
included in the charter.
The chair determined that there were too many changes to the charter
to proceed without posting a revised charter to the discussion list
for review.
A discussion on data formats and tags and the registry of same
followed. A rough consensus was reached that:
o No central/universal registry of tags was practical at this time.
o A mechanism must exist to find out the definition of a tag.
o URCs must be able to include existing systems of tags (like MARC).
Presentation of URC Work in Progress
------------------------------------
Ron Daniel presented an overview of his current work on URCs.
Keith Moore presented an overview of his current work on URCs.