**DRAFT** Report of a teleconference meeting of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 1, 2010-11-17

ATTENDANCE
==========

[WG 1 "Zip" study group members are given below, an asterisk indicates attendance on this call]

* Alex BROWN (WG 1 Convenor) Griffin Brown Digital Publishing Ltd
* Andrew RIST (US) Oracle
Bob JOLLIFFE (OASIS ODF TC) consultant
* Chris Francis (GB) IBM
Rex JAESCHKE (Ecma) consultant
Dave PAWSON (GB) consultant
Dennis HAMILTON (OASIS ODF TC) consultant
* Doug MAHUGH (Ecma) Microsoft
MURATA Makoto (JP) International Univeristy of Japan
* Francis CAVE (GB) Francis Cave Digital Publishing Ltd
* Frank FARANCE (US) Farance, Inc
Gareth HORTON (GB) Datawatch
Mohamed ZERGAOUI (FR, W3C, XML Guild) Innovimax SARL
* Jim Peterson (US) PKWare
Jirka KOSEK (CZ)
Mario Wendt (DE) Microsoft
Patrick DURUSAU (US) Individual
* Rob WEIR (US, OASIS ODF TC) IBM
* Svante Schubert (DE) Oracle

[other WG 1 experts joining the call:]

* David Carlisle (GB) NAG


AGENDA AS ADOPTED (see SC 34 N 1515)
=================

1. Opening [14:00 UTC]

2. Roll call

3. Adoption of the agenda

4. Remarks from the convenor

5. Future meeting schedule

6.1 Approval of the minutes of teleconference, 2010-10-20

6.2 Review of outstanding action items

7. Parts of DSDL

8. Study Period on the "Zip" format (see SC 34 N 1494)

10. Any other business

11. Closing


FUTURE MEETINGS
===============

The next WG 1 teleconference date is scheduled to coincide with the upcoming face-to-face meeting in Beijing, technology permitting.

The next face-to-face meeting of WG 1 will be on 2010-12-09 in Beijing, China (see SC 34 N 1511).

Logisitical information about the Beijing meeting is available in SC 34 N 1479.


ACTIONS (see SC 34 N 1513)
=======

Outstanding action items now are:

# MURATA Makoto, Mohamed ZERGAOUI and Jirka KOSEK to work on proposals for a revision of 19757-4

# Francis CAVE to contact the DAISY consortium wrt creation of a RNG schema

# MURATA Makoto to prepare a working draft of an ISO/IEC 19757-2 v2

# Francis CAVE to produce a DCOR for 19757-8 in response to comments received, and forward it to the convenor for processing

# Alex BROWN & Mohamed ZERGAOUI to submit draft documents outlining idea for a new Part 6 to the dsdl mailing lists

# MURATA Makoto to continue work on his schemas for W3C XML Security and correct problems in the draft around the labelling of sections as normative/non-normative

# Rick JELLIFFE to prepare a proposed disposition of comments in response to the CD ballot on a revision of 19757-3:2006 (SC 34 N 1462)

# All experts ro review Murata-san's schemas prepared for W3C (XML Security, XHTML, etc.)

# Alex BROWN, Jim PETERSON and Rob WEIR to draft some identified features of the Zip format

# Rob WEIR, Chris FRANCIS and Doug MAHUGH to draft some text for a NWIP to create a profile standard for Zip


PARTS OF DSDL
=============

There had been no activity on DSDL since the last call.


STUDY PERIOD ON THE "ZIP" FORMAT
================================

The meeting approved the minutes of the last teleconference (2010-10-20) with one change at the suggestion of Dave PAWSON, that it be made clear the problem statement being drafted by the Working Group was merely a proposal at this stage.

The convenor noted that teleconference facilities should be available during the upcoming face-to-face meeting in Beijing.

Andrew RIST spoke to the problem statement he had drafted on the WG 1 Wiki. He summarised it as raising two main kinds of issue: the problem of formally referencing Zip technology from Standards, and the technical issues surrounding the use of Zip for document packaging. This maybe suggested there were multiple work items to be done.

Rob WEIR agreed that we were faced with both procedural and technical challenges. Perhaps the role of SC 34 would be to explore the relationship between the XML and non-XML aspects of a Zip package? In particular could a technology like DFDL be used to express more general constraints on packages of content?

A general discussion followed concerning the timescales required to pursue a fuller technical project, and how this fitted with earlier discussions about producing a RER for the PKWare appnote.

Frank FARANCE suggested that if multiple projects had to reference the appnote using RERs, JTC 1 might wonder why it was not being made a Standard. Another approach would be that PKWare became an ARO – but although there was precedent for corporations being made AROs, they remained tricky candidates.

Rob WEIR suggested there were different levels of speed and difficulty to bringing Zip into a standards environment. At one end was the RER approach; in the middle was the ARO approach or consortium standardization; the hardest/slowest route was full standardization in committee.

A general discussion followed concerning the benefits of International Standardization. Frank FARANCE said in his experience the drafting of documents in committee led to a usefully greater level of understanding, even if the underlying technology remained unchanged.

Jim PETERSON said he thought the RER approach made sense, especially in the short term. The group should take care to make decisions now which would work well in the longer-term.

Alex BROWN wondered to what extent RERs could be re-used between projects. Francis CAVE and Rob WEIR said they understood that RER wording could be re-used but each RER must be approved as part of its host project.

Chris FRANCIS said he thought it was important to see the work of this group as distinct from other projects in progress.

Rob WEIR said new projects referencing Zip would need to develop RERs anyway, as the ultimate result of any project to Standardize Zip could not be second-guessed. However, there may be other technical and standardization work to be done longer term. 

Rob WEIR outlined a possible way forward in which a profile standard was developed which stated a set of constraints on the PKWare appnote, which was referenced by RER.

Jim PETERSON said he thought this approach made a lot of sense, and was an approach which was consistent with existing use of Zip, which allowed Zip to remain independent and market-relevant.

Andrew RIST agreed an advantage of this approach was that it could effectively profile Zip without conflicting with Zip’s wider definition in the marketplace.

A general discussion followed concerning the profile standard approach, with participants liking the idea. Rob WEIR, Chris FRANCIS and Doug MAHUGH took an action to draft some text for a NWIP which could be presented to SC 34 in advance of its Prague meeting in March.

[The meeting closed at 15:20 UTC.]