1 Opening remarks and introductions
Vice Chair Gregg Vanderheiden convened the meeting on Thursday, Dec. 21, 2006 at 9:16 AM (ET). He introduced himself as Vice Chair in the absence of our Chair, Bill LaPlant.
1.1 Meeting guidelines (Anti-Trust)
The Vice Chair stated that the meeting was operating under INCITS procedures, and called special attention to the ANSI patent policies and the INCITS antitrust policies (http://www.incits.org/inatrust.htm). The Vice Chair noted that the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines applied to this committee meeting, and that it was the responsibility of all attendees, and not just the Officers, to ensure that the Guidelines are followed, and to terminate discussions if they are not.
1.2 Meeting Documents
The meeting documents were obtainable from V2’s email reflector. The agenda and meeting documents were posted in the required time frame.
1.3 Self-introductions
Members on the call took turns introducing themselves. There were six members in attendance (see listing in section 3.9).
2 Approval of the Agenda
An electronic version of the agenda, document V2/06-0007, and supporting documents were accessible via the technical (TC) web site. The vice chair presented the agenda, and made a call for any new agenda items. Gottfried proposed an additional line item for discussion, section 8.3, US comments on SC35 icon restructuring proposal. There were no objections to unanimous consent. The agenda was accepted by unanimous consent.
3 Attendance and Membership
3.1 Gaining and Losing Voting Membership
Information on how membership is gained, maintained, and lost in any INCITS Technical Committee or Task Group may be found at www.incits.org/rd2/main.htm. The attendance list for this meeting is included below.
3.2 Changes in representation since last meeting
Al Gilman has been given permission by Janina Sajka to vote for FSG.
3.3 New voting memberships
Marquette University regains voting membership with this meeting.
3.4 New advisory memberships
No new advisory membership.
3.5 Voting memberships resigned
MERL will be resigning its membership.
3.6 Voting memberships in jeopardy for attendance
Nobody is in jeopardy for attendance.
3.7 Voting memberships in jeopardy for letter ballots
Nobody is in jeopardy for letter ballots.
3.8 Voting memberships in jeopardy for fees
Nobody is in jeopardy for fees.
3.9 Membership for this meeting
Based on the above information, the total voting membership is 6 effective at the start of this meeting. The complete list of members (both voting and advisory) is listed below.
The attendance at this meeting is as follows:
Organization Name |
Representative |
Membership Class (P, A, AA, L) |
Marquette University |
Jack Winters |
Principle |
NIST |
Charles Sheppard |
Alternate |
FSG |
Al Gilman |
Alternate |
Trace |
Gottfried Zimmermann |
Alternate |
Wireless RERC |
Jeremy Johnson |
Alternate |
Trace |
Gregg Vanderheiden |
Principle |
4 Approval of Minutes of Meeting #22
The minutes of TC Meeting #22 (document, V2/06-0012) on November 20-21, 2006 was reviewed. No issues were raised.
Motion (Sheppard moved, Winters seconded): To approve the draft minutes of meeting #22. The motion approved by unanimous consent.
5 Review of action items
http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-ncits/bin/view/NCITSV2/ActionItems
Closed ACTION ITEM 06-001: to have IMS people review CEA-2033 CPP.
Completed ACTION ITEM 06-002: to review FCD 24756. Jack will discuss later in meeting.
Completed ACTION ITEM 06-003: to provide comments on proposed icon structure.
Closed ACTION ITEM 06-004: review training material sent to work-def reflector on October 23.
Completed ACTION ITEM 06-005: to send invitation for meeting #23.
Closed ACTION ITEM 04-029: set up a Twiki page to collect bullets on security issues.
Closed ACTION ITEM 04-048: send letter to Podio appointing Sheppard liaison to INCITS-M1.
Confirm ACTION ITEM 04-059: appoint Gregg Vanderheiden as liaison to URC Consortium. We will revisit this action item in the liaison reports and formalize it with a vote.
6 Administrative Reports
6.1 Chair (LaPlant)
6.2 Vice Chair (Vanderheiden)
We are moving along well. We regret that we are losing Chuck Rich due to his promotion on his job.
6.3 International Representative (Zimmermann)
We are heading for the finish-line on ISO/IEC 24752. Zimmermann is concerned about what is coming after 24752. He feels there is a need to focus on accessibility which involves working with SC35.
Internationally, we are getting more attention with the URC standard. Spain has indicated that they have projects that will be using the URC standard. Spain will be joining SC35; however, there is still a lot of work left to convince mainstream industry of the benefits of URC. The URC consortium is the forum for doing this.
6.4 Secretary (Sheppard)
We are up to date with all of our minutes.
7 Related Activities
7.1 Liaison Reports
7.1.1 INCITS (Gaskill)
Not present.
7.1.2 INCITS V-36 (LaPlant)
Not present.
7.1.3 ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC25 WG 1 (Wacks)
Not present.
7.1.4 ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC36 Information Technology for Learning, Education, and Training (LaPlant)
Not present.
7.1.5 Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) (Zimmermann)
We have a few CEA members who are interested and very few who are actively participating in the URCC. We are going to do demonstrations at the CEA show in January. Emphasis will be on the URC benefits to mainstream technology. We are not going to talk about accessibility. The demonstrations are going to be based on existing mainstream industry standards in consumer electronics. Flash, although it is not a standard, will be used which is based on CEA 2014 which is a remote UI standard that is based on UPnP. Another demonstration will be the task demonstration to simulate what the standard can do. We have also invited discussions with CEA members.
We are also looking at CEA 2018 which is a task model standard of CEA Working Group 12 which is lead by Chuck Rich. Progress is being made in this area. Zimmermann thinks that our URC will be a nice compliment to CEA 2018. The user interface will be a separate component of the standard. The URC socket layer will be ideal for the binding that will be needed in implementing the task model.
We are also looking at CEA 2014 which is the UPnP based remote user interface standard. It is being revised currently. Zimmermann is working with CEA Working Group 9 to revise the CEA 2014 standard. It has been adopted by DLNA version 2.
We are also looking at CEA 2033 the opened EPG standard which is currently under vote. This standard will be relevant for targets that want to provide EPG information. This will be useful in the I2home project. Gilman pointed out that the EPG standard is a useful meta-data for streams of data. We could use the EPG standard definitions for our URC standard.
Gilman asked clarification about the third demonstration that will be performed at the CEA show, “Is it a look ahead at how to implement the task model?” Zimmerman responded that the demonstration will not use the exact task model specifications, but will point out what it could be like.
.
7.1.6 Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) (Nevile)
Not present.
7.1.7 URC Consortium (Vanderheiden)
The URC Consortium (URCC) is starting to gather additional members. Motorola is helping TRACE with some of its prototyping work. The URCC is being formalized. Gregg has been talking to the Wisconsin University about making URCC a part of the University.
7.2 Other Updates
7.2.1 Web Accessibility Initiative (Gilman)
Various members of the WAI have been very active in working with the US government standards activities in the area of Web accessibility. WAI has updated the Web content accessibility guidelines and is negotiating with the US government at the same time. A small portion of the activity is the WAI RA work which allow people to have something similar to the URC socket for their scripted wigets for web pages (release of draft 2). The other new draft is WAI has just released the first public draft of a binding document that deal with hyper-text content transfer (RDF content for the semantic web).
7.2.2 Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Forum (Zimmermann)
Most of the UPnP activity is happening in DLNA. There is a new UPnP working group working on a remote access profile for UPnP on how to provide external access control points that will allow by-passing the firewall. And, there is a new UPnP device architecture document that is out for voting (version 1.0.1).
7.2.3 INCITS L8 Metadata (Sheppard)
No report.
7.2.4 NIST Smart Space (Sheppard)
No report.
7.2.5 INCITS M1 Biometrics (Sheppard)
No report.
7.2.6 JTC1 SC37 Biometrics (Sheppard)
There is ongoing work for making the gathering of biometrics data more accessible and meaningful when confirming the identity of the visually impaired at airports and other secure areas.
7.2.7 Georgia Tech (Johnson)
There is an ongoing effort to update their URC framework to the specifications of the current ISO documents.
7.2.8 Marquette (Danturthi)
Jack reported that they are implementing the URC standard in odometer monitors which is built on an adhoc standard (called See-Safe) used in the health industry to offer personalized health facilities. Implementation will be upgraded to the ISO URC specifications.
7.2.9 Trace (Zimmermann)
Zimmermann stated that they are also in the process of upgrading their URC SDK to the ISO URC specifications. This will be version 4.0. Future development will include enhancement to their UPnP link to work with the URC SDK suite. This will be important to their I2home project. There is a possibility that the Flash URC will be published which demonstrate non-Java clients.
7.2.10 I2home (Zimmermann)
8 Working Session on International Projects (Zimmermann)
8.1 ISO/IEC 24752, Universal Remote Console
Optional attributes with regard to closed item 42 are now possible via a solution provided by Gottfried. Gottfried has also implemented a solution for open issue 24. Gottfried has also looked at dynamic selections for comma separated list. The selection element inside a term has also been implemented.
In looking at the open issues list, Gottfried wants to talk about issue 10 -- streaming elements, issue 34 – group elements in sockets, issue 40 – labels for internal socket elements, issue 41 – label for socket groups, and issue 43 – target descriptions and target instances.
Our documents have been edited to allow streaming elements. There are to be eight different types of streams. In terms of time line, the SC35 membership is already waiting for this newer version of the URC. Gottfried feels that he can sell the editorial changes as a friendly amendment within the SC35 membership—not requiring a vote. We should only need one vote at the JTC1 level to make the URC an ISO standard. This vote should occur in April or May of 2007 after the February SC35 meeting.
Issue 34:
Gottfried pleading for separation of (tree) composition (in SD) and presentation structure (Grouping Resources). Gregg: "group" should be reserved for presentational groups, don't need labels. Al: "Collection", but should have labels. Gregg: CC button as example, showing up on main screen and down in audio controls. Tools may support going from compositional structure to presentation structure. Jack: Interface generation needs context-aware groups. Need at least 3-4 degrees of relevance, could be done through numbers assigned to groups. Gottfried: Could define relevant with any value between 1 and 0. And define that true=1, and false=0 (both allowed). Fuzzy logic.
Resolution: Disallow multiple instances of dependencies, but keep them as elements. Define strict inheritance with override. Relevant can be a boolean or a number between 0 and 1. Compositional groups should be named "set" in the SD.
Should Grouping Resources be mandatory? Hard to express compliance rules of what makes a useful presentational grouping (that makes for a "functional user experience"). Gregg: Should be mandatory, need to make tool that allows authors to easily define Grouping Resources. Jack and Gregg: Make coherence required for Grouping Resources, and allow a "shortcut notation" such as <setRef> meaning that all elements (not subsets) of the referenced set are to be included in that group, but this is not transitive. Gottfried: Concerned about how to sell this to industry - they are not intrigued by device independence.
Resolution: Do this, as proposed by Jack and Gregg.
Issue 40:
Abandon internal attribute, as proposed by Al.
Issue 41:
<relevant> and <write> dependencies on sets accepted. We require labels for all groups, but not for sets.
Issue 43:
All of the proposed points below were accepted.
(1) We should be consistent in having an instance-neutral Target Description.
(2) We should allow to specify target instances in Atomic Resource Descriptions by <forTargetInstance>. This is useful for local resource servers and Target resources.
(3) We should drop the <location> element in Target Description. This is against the spirit of an instance-neutral TD, especially the <gml:Point> element. Instead, we should add a role called "location", i.e. http://myurc.org/ns/res#location: The Atomic Resource is a location description pertaining to the referenced element. Location descriptions can be applied to Targets that are location-dependent.
8.2 ISO/IEC 24756, Framework for specifying a common access profile (CAP) of needs and capabilities of users, systems, and their environments
Jack has read through the entire document. There were two additions to the document. They have added a number of tables, 6 through 10, that relate to capabilities specifications. The other addition is a new section 7 which address operations on caps
Jack pointed out that they have included the term accessibility in the title of section 4.1 of the document. Jack feels that this is problematic because it ties accessibility to usability instead of compatibility. The decision was to drop asking ISO to redefine or remove accessibility from the document.
Jack pointed out that they have not fully addressed the arrow directional problem. They just added a sentence stating that arrows can go in either direction. Everything is being viewed as conceptual instead of formal; but we have decided that we will not ask them to change having arrows that go from out-to-in. We will just let it go.
Gottfried asked if the present content of the document is sufficient for helping to build accessible systems. Jack felt that the document does not formally address input/output specifications that will insure accessibility.
Motion (Jeremy moved, Sheppard seconded): That we accept the document without comment. The motion was passed by unanimous consent.
8.3 New international work in SC35 WG6 & WG7
Gottfried asked for comments on SC35 icon restructuring proposal.
After discussion, V2 resolves to submit the following comments to SC35, in response to Resolution 25 of the SC35 meeting in Korea. The comments are:
(1) The US welcomes the effort for providing an inventory of SC35 icon standards and presenting them more consistently with each other, as outlined in SC35 N1042, section 2.4, Proposed structure of Parts 1-99.
(2) The US is opposed to the idea of re-standardizing categorized sets of icons, as outlined in SC35 N1042, section 4, Proposed Structuring of Parts 100 - 299. We believe that icon standardization should be based on a repository rather than International Standard documents. The repository-driven would be more appropriate for the following reasons: (a) the proposed structure is premature for future work. (b) This approach would allow for quicker turn-around times (as opposed to the long development time for an IS or TR). (c) Such a repository should be open to a broader community (beyond JTC1 membership). (d) A new item submitted to the repository can provide its conceptual relationship with the previously existing items.
Motion (Sheppard moved, Johnson seconded): That the proposed comments be submitted as worded. The motion was passed by unanimous consent.
8.4 U.S. Delegation for next SC35 meeting, Feb. 19-23, 2007
8.5 Liaison to URC Consortium
Motion (Gottfried moved, Johnson seconded): That Gregg Vanderheiden be appointed as liaison to the URC Consortium. The motion was passed by roll call at 5-0-0-1.
9 INCITS Training
It was suggested that members read the document sent to V2 members from Barbara Bennett.
10 Future Meeting Schedule
The proposed date of the next meeting (Plenary #24) was April 20, 2007 from 10:00 to 1:00 pm ET.
11 Action Items
There were no action items.
12 Adjournment
Motion (Sheppard moved, Johnson seconded): To adjourn at 1:25pm ET. The motion passed by unanimous consent.