Minutes – Z39.86 Advisory Committee Conference Call

Date: 2005-01-05
Time: 9:00 – 10:10 EST
Venue: telcon
Scribe: George Kerscher
Last Edited: 5 January 2005
Status: Version 1

Attendees

Advisory Committee:

George Kerscher, Advisory Committee Chair – DAISY Consortium and Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
Thomas Kjellberg Christensen – Danish Library for the Blind
Marisa DeMeglio – DAISY for All Project
Tom McLaughlin – National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
Michael Moodie – National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
James Pritchett – Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
Lloyd Rasmussen – National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

Participating Experts:

Neil Bernstein – National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
Werner Krebs – Design Science
Dominic Labbé – VisuAide
Chris Wilder-Smith – CAST

Apologies:

Ole Holst Andersen – Danish Library for the Blind
Markus Gylling – DAISY Consortium and Swedish Library of Talking Books and Braille
Dave Pawson – Royal National Institute of the Blind
Neil Soiffer – Design Science

Agenda

The agenda was distributed to the Advisory Committee's list on Monday, January 3. there were no amendments in advance of the call.

Scribe

GK will act as scribe for today. The call is being recorded, but just for minutes purposes.

2. Agenda Additions

There were no additions to the proposed agenda.

3. Confirmation of Date and Time for Next Call

Gk proposed that the next call be held on February 2, 2005. There was some discussion of the time. For this next call, the time will be moved one hour forward 10:00 a.m. Eastern, 7:00 Pacific, 15:00 UK, and 16:00 Copenhagen and Stockholm.

4. News on NISO voting

Votes are still coming in. It appears that the voting deadline was moved to February 11.

There was discussion that the references in the spec itself should be updated to reflect the number of the standard, assumedly it will be -2005. This could be done with a careful search and replace.

ACTION: MM will contact NISO and provide an update prior to January 17; the NIMAS committee is meeting on the 18 & 19 and having the status available would be good. MM will also check on the number of the standard and the need to update the spec.

ACTION: LR will create some simple text to inform people on the soon to come revision to the standard.

5. Modular Extension Guidelines

Long discussion about the draft. It was noted that MathML has an "other" attribute that could be used for the smilref support. This was met with a sigh of relief from the committee. We feel that we should not be making modifications to other standards.

There was general concerns that a new section should be created that describes the long term plans and that the current solution should be scoped with this in mind. There is a need to deliver this document by January 18 to the NIMAS committee. The committee agreed that approval of the revised guidelines could be approved through email.

ACTION: GK to revise the guidelines taking into consideration the long discussion (thankfully it is recorded). GK will post to the list for further discussion and approval.

API for Zed

We started a discussion about possible API(s) in support of the Zed standard. We were trying to get our arms around this concept. No conclusions or recommendations were reached. Thomas, Markus, and George to discuss further.

7. The rest of the agenda

The rest of the agenda was not discussed. It is reproduced below for future reference:

-  Work Plans --  Areas of focus
1) Support for the implementation of Zed 2005
2)  Work on Zed 2007

Proposal to chunk the work into project areas. Ask that a person from the Zed Committee to lead (or track and report) on the Project. These include:
DRM working group, Neil Bernstein
ZedVal working group, Markus
Communications (messaging about Zed 2005, publicize work plans, announcements),?
Supporting Materials (Structure Guidelines, XML training materials,  Sample content), ?
Specification maintenance (issue tracking, errata, spec issues) ?
Mathematics Working Group, ?
Video Working Group, ?

- Issues tracking  Attached Do these all fall into one of the working groups? Should we make it the responsibility of the various working groups to claim the issues?