[1/26/2006 2:52 PM] [INFO] Now logging to . [1/26/2006 2:52 PM] *TBaker checking the log function... [1/26/2006 2:53 PM] *TBaker it's working great :-) [1/26/2006 2:53 PM] ok, good [1/26/2006 2:53 PM] sorry, i'm going to go off-line for a few minutes while I do a final bit of reading! [1/26/2006 2:54 PM] ok see you soon [1/26/2006 3:00 PM] I have initiated the phone conference... [1/26/2006 3:01 PM] ok, will call in now [1/26/2006 3:02 PM] -->| Diane (Diane@rox-9991B2BC.fltg.net) has joined #UB [1/26/2006 3:02 PM] hi Diane! [1/26/2006 3:03 PM] Akira has arrived on the phone [1/26/2006 3:03 PM] Andy is here [1/26/2006 3:03 PM] Andrew is here [1/26/2006 3:05 PM] Stuart is here [1/26/2006 3:05 PM] -->| sasutton (chatzilla@rox-27A3AAE7.tukw.qwest.net) has joined #UB [1/26/2006 3:09 PM] Tom asked who was intending to use Subversion to check things in and out. Diane was the only one who said "yes." [1/26/2006 3:10 PM] but andy probably will as well! [1/26/2006 3:10 PM] Others had been able to get access; Tom was wondering how we'd keep track of things once he was not the gatekeeper. [1/26/2006 3:11 PM] Tom proposed to put the new process document up to replace the old one and to continue to discuss on the list. Stuart thought that was a good process [1/26/2006 3:12 PM] ACTION: Tom to publish on Feb 13 - Process [1/26/2006 3:14 PM] Tom proposes to come out with a summary at the end of the comment period, thanking commenters. [1/26/2006 3:14 PM] ACTION: Stuart to draft a summary - circulate to list - post sometime after Jan 31 [1/26/2006 3:18 PM] Diane - DCSV docs look good [1/26/2006 3:19 PM] Diane: Are we saying this is a good idea? [1/26/2006 3:19 PM] *TBaker Tom notes we need to have a rationale for the changes [1/26/2006 3:20 PM] ...we need to say: "This has problems. If you want to do it, do it this way." [1/26/2006 3:20 PM] As it stands, it is a mixed message. [1/26/2006 3:22 PM] Diane: it comes up as a recommendation. [1/26/2006 3:22 PM] We need something that permanently resides with the document - we're not "really" recommending...! [1/26/2006 3:23 PM] Andy: we want to say "In general, DCMI recommends that implementers use 'related description' [1/26/2006 3:23 PM] features of DAM to represent complex structures. [1/26/2006 3:23 PM] We want some kind of sentence like that in this document. [1/26/2006 3:25 PM] Diane: It has to have this piece in it before we put it up for comment. [1/26/2006 3:26 PM] Andrew: DAM is ambiguous about Structured Values [1/26/2006 3:26 PM] That ambiguity should be removed, so that the DAM and DCSV docs are in sync. [1/26/2006 3:27 PM] Tom: suggested removal of DCSV except as a historical thing in the DCAM [1/26/2006 3:28 PM] Tom: Concerned that saying revision of dCAM is needed raises the bar for getting the DCSV document out [1/26/2006 3:29 PM] Tom: Maybe the DCSV doc can anticipate what we want to say in DCAM and we can hold off on the DCAM [1/26/2006 3:29 PM] Andrew: We need to know what the DAM says about this. [1/26/2006 3:30 PM] Andy: agrees that if fuzziness we need to address; not sure where it actually occurs. Thinks we can put out a new DCSV without a DCAM revision [1/26/2006 3:30 PM] Andy: I think we can put out new DCSV specs without revising DAM first. [1/26/2006 3:31 PM] The changes on the table do not require us to reword the DAM first. [1/26/2006 3:33 PM] Andy: This issue only comes to fore if we want to add a sentence pointing people to DAM. [1/26/2006 3:34 PM] ACTION: Tom write sentence for introduction of DCSV syntax spec. [1/26/2006 3:36 PM] Tom: should we go ahead and deal with the status and establish something like "rescinded recommendation" [1/26/2006 3:36 PM] Andy: Only makes sense if we don't intend to make these new ones "recommendations" [1/26/2006 3:38 PM] Andy: we are just revising language - we can simply say that. [1/26/2006 3:39 PM] Andrew agrees, Stuart, Diane agree. [1/26/2006 3:39 PM] Diane: don't want to watch sausage being made... [1/26/2006 3:39 PM] Andrew: "making them conform to the DAM" - need we say more? [1/26/2006 3:39 PM] Diane: need to say something about "not recommending" them. [1/26/2006 3:40 PM] Andy: point out that these changes are "not substantial" - implementations do not change [1/26/2006 3:41 PM] ACTION: Tom a: not recommending, b: implementations do not change, c: making language conform to DAM [1/26/2006 3:42 PM] ACTION: Andy to ask Mikael to review the DCSV Syntax spec [1/26/2006 3:43 PM] ACTION: Andrew edit the other two. [1/26/2006 3:46 PM] ACTION: Tom make final changes for DCMES property definition [1/26/2006 3:48 PM] Tom: Wants a suite of documents to be prepared in time for our f2f meeting, hopes to show to the trustees [1/26/2006 3:50 PM] Andy: The Decision tree could be an appendix to the Profile Guidelines [1/26/2006 3:52 PM] Tom: Also Assigning identifiers document, might be included. [1/26/2006 3:54 PM] Diane: people should be able to get PDF versions of these things too [1/26/2006 3:54 PM] Andy: need a proposal of what the suite should contain [1/26/2006 3:54 PM] Andy: need someone to propose what items need to go into that suite of documents [1/26/2006 3:54 PM] ...which one as appendices, which as... [1/26/2006 3:55 PM] Tom: already had a start on this in the Madrid packet [1/26/2006 3:55 PM] ACTION: For upcoming telecon, propose "suite" for discussion [1/26/2006 3:56 PM] Tom: Pete says that Coll Desc will not be ready by April, would like to have at least one ready to approve, suggests the Simple DC one [1/26/2006 3:58 PM] Tom: TF should have a recommendation to the UB and we'll go from there [1/26/2006 3:59 PM] Tom: will get in touch with Liddy about what she feels are the possible outcomes [1/26/2006 4:00 PM] Andy: interesting thing about date is partially that Charles has come up with a new syntax encoding scheme and this brings up some issues about how to deal with it [1/26/2006 4:01 PM] Tom: Documentation roadmap will be on the docket, based on one that was discussed by the trustees in Madrid [1/26/2006 4:01 PM] Tom: Makes an inventory of what we have and where the gaps are [1/26/2006 4:04 PM] Tom: Next meeting location will be identified at the trustees call on 2/2, if they can't meet the day before us, we'll go to Barcelona. If they can meet the day before us we'll go to Singapore [1/26/2006 4:08 PM] <--| YOU (TBaker) have left #UB