National Committee for Information Technology Standards
NCITS Secretariat, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
1250 Eye St. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005
Telephone 202-737-8888; Fax 202-638-4922;
Email: ncits@itic.org

DOC: V2/01-0039
Date: December 26, 2001

Project: Administrative
Ref. Doc: V2/01-0024 , V2/01-0023R1
Reply to: Joe Roeder , V2 Secretary
Email: jroeder@nib.org

Subject: MINUTES of NCITS V2 PLENARY MEETING #6

Bill LaPlant (V2 Chair) called the meeting to order and welcomed the members and guests.

2. Introduction of attendees.

Ref:

V2/01-SD-01 - List of Members and Contact Information

V2 members

Charles Sheppard, Dept. of Commerce, P
Bill LaPlant, Dept of Commerce, A
James Kindrick, ERIM, P
Shari Trewin, IBM, P
Nasser Ghazi, MICROSOFT, P
Masahiko Kaneko, MICROSOFT, A
Joe Roeder, NIB, P
Kevin Caves, RERC on Communication Enhancement, P
John A. Chapman, SHARE INC, P
Peter Korn, Sun Microsystems, P
Margot Peet, THE MITRE CORPORATION, P
Gregg Vanderheiden, TRACE CTR UNIV OF WISC, P
Gottfried Zimmermann, TRACE CTR UNIV OF WISC, A
Joy Relton, Unisys Corporation, P

Observers and guests

John Voelk, B-Square, O
Stéphane H. Maes, IBM, O
Marlin Blizinsky, Microsoft, O
Mike Friedman, MICROSOFT, O
Katie Haritos-Shea, Consultant, O
Al Gilman, TRACE CTR UNIV OF WISC, O
Martin King, Vashon Able, O

A quorum of voting members attended on both days.

3. Approval of the Agenda.

Ref:

V2/01-0023R1 - Revised Draft Agenda for rescheduled meeting #6 of V2, 11/27-28/2001

LaPlant proposed the addition of 8.1.2 IBM Device Independent presentation (Stephane Maes)

The motion passed by unanimous consent.

(See attachment - FINAL AGENDA FOR V2 PLENARY MEETING #6 at the end of these minutes)

4. Approval of the Minutes for plenary meeting #6.

Ref:

V2/01-0020 - Draft Minutes for plenary meeting #5 of V2, 7/30-31/2001)

Motion: that the minutes be accepted as presented.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

5. Review of action items.

Ref:

V2/01-SD-03 - V2 Action Items

 #006 post relevant section508 developments to V2 public reflector (ncits-v2@nist.gov) [P5/5.11]

Ongoing.

#004 organize FAQ and V2 website to make V2 effort more understandable. [p1/10.1] Gilman will get relevant links for background information to be put on V2 web site, will post list of links to work-def reflector; Urban will follow up with Gilman. [P5/5.4]

Ongoing.
No FAQ has been created.
LaPlant asked new members and observers to submit questions for the V2 FAQ.

#018 provide more information about AT&T WorldNet access devices. [P2/9.0]; Burks will do presentation at next plenary on alternate access devices [P5.5.18]

Ongoing.

#022 Review UN draft ISO handbook 71 on taxonomy [P5/5.22]]

Done.
Sheppard will give reference.

#027 ALL will look for someone who can help with security/privacy issues and put out word that V2 needs input. [P4/5.27]; Chapman and Korn will work on security issue; Chapman will schedule and Sheppard will set up a teleconference. [P5/9.1.2]

Ongoing.
Korn and Chapman will do a teleconference on security before December 25. Sheppard will set up the call.
Sheppard will be added as responsible for this item.

#049 Put together a proposal for procedure on how rationale of changes on documents will be captured. [P4/5.49]

Ongoing.
Kindrick said he will do by 12/14/2001

#054 provide summary of the discussion Gilman led on X-Forms, etc. [P4/8.2]

Done.
Gilman said this was not done on TWIKI, but posted to work-def.
Action: (managers) Roeder will register the summary on XForms presentation that Gilman posted to work def. [P6/5.54]

#057 work on glossary, acronyms and abbreviations. [P4/8.3] start a glossary based on terms in the requirements document. [P4/9.1]

Ongoing.
Kindrick said he looked at the definitions section of the RC draft, got input from Jim Tobias and started a collection of terms.

LaPlant suggested he, Kindrick and Haritos-Shea work off line on methodology to complete.

Action: Kindrick/Haritos-Shea/LaPlant will be responsible for action item #057; will work off line on methodology to complete. [P6/5.57]

LaPlant appointed Kindrick to be V2 Vocabulary officer.

#059 formalize a request from V2 to be put on the canvassing list. [P4/7.3]

Over come by events.

#060 get relevant links for background information to be put on V2 web site; post list of links to work-def reflector; Urban will follow up with Gilman. [P5/5.4]

Ongoing.

Action: Roeder/Gilman will put information links onto V2 working web site; also collect all other links posted to work-def and NCITS-V2 (by LaPlant, Relton, Zimmermann, and others) [p6/5.60]

#061 draft V2 annual report to NCITS for next plenary; this will be added under agenda item 6.1 for the next plenary. [P5/6]

Done.

#062 put section 508 reflector sign up info in the minutes and on the V2 web site. [P5/7.1]

Done.

6. Administrative Reports.

6.1 V2 Annual Report to NCITS.

LaPlant reported that he submitted the annual report and gave a Power Point presentation to NCITS.

Ref:

V2/01-0025 -NCITS V2 Annual Report
V2/01-0025A - Slide Presentation to NCITS on V2
Action: Roeder will post to V2 web site by 11/30/2001 the Power Point presentation given by LaPlant to NCITS. [P6/6.1]

6.2 Consideration of tabled motion.

LaPlant made a motion that we follow the ISO style guide. Vanderheiden seconded the motion. Ghazi objected that there was not enough time to consider the issue and made a motion to table it. LaPlant offered an amendment that it be tabled until the next plenary. The motion to table LaPlant's motion (on following the ISO style guide) until the next plenary was seconded and passed by unanimous consent.

In the discussion all understood that V2 could use ISO as a guideline and still change the rules to make our work effective and understandable. LaPlant confirmed that ANSI would accept the ISO format. Adoption of the ISO guideline does not mean AIAP will be an ISO standard, but that using the ISO format will make it easier to move through that process later.

LaPlant called for a vote on the motion.

Motion: (LaPlant/Vanderheiden) that V2 will follow the ISO style guide.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

6.3 Draft of V2 AIAP metadata registry proposal to NCITS.

Sheppard started a proposal for a metadata project and asked for help. LaPlant said V2 is Looking for anyone with experience with data registry. There are details to be worked out and interface with L8 and W3C efforts. There is a lot of work to do and V2 might end up with more than 1 registry (one on the human side, one on the services side and maybe one on a modeling side). This is closely connected to the Framework effort, but not as close to the RC effort.

7. Related Activities

7.1 Access Board Proposed Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards.

Ref:

http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm#PART 1194 Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards

Without objection, agenda item 7.1 was skipped.

7.2 World Wide Web Cunsortium, Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C/WAI).

Ref:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ - Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Home Page

Gilman reported that the Composite Capabilities and Preferences Profiles (CC/PP ) document is near the candidate phase.  He also said be aware of the W3C User Agent Guidelines (UAG). The UA home page has links to a map of UAG and 508. LaPlant asked Kindrick to pass this along to the access forum.

Ref:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/ - User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/ - WAI User Agent Guidelines Home Page

7.3 IEEE P2001 Web Engineering Best Practices Guidelines.

Ref:

http://computer.org/standards/Internet/index.htm - Internet Practices Standards Working Group

LaPlant reported that the comment period closed. We tracked this standard because it has a section on accessibility.

7.4 Accessibility Forum.

Ref:

http://www.accessibilityforum.org/index.html - Accessibility Forum Home Page

Kindrick reported that the Forum has started 2 projects: 1- interoperability, and 2- objective measures. Each has web home pages linked from http://projects.accessibilityforum.org .

Kindrick said there is a relationship to theV2 glossary. The Forum is looking for a common set of terms and will harmonize with V2.

The next Access Forum conference will be February 27-28, 2002, in Denver, Colorado. This will be a status report and work session. V2 members are invited to attend.

Ref:

http://projects.accessibilityforum.org - Accessibility Forum Projects

7.5 Other.

Ghazi reported that UPNP summit will be on November 29-30, 2001, on the Microsoft campus. V2 members are invited.

8. Presentations.

8.1 Technical presentations.

8.1.1 Universal Console.

Ref:

V2/01-0032 - Updated Microsoft presentation at plenary #6
VIEW] [ DOWNLOAD]

The Microsoft team gave a presentation on their Universal Console project, code named Victoria. Using Universal Plug and Play technology, they showed how a single control device can operate with multiple user devices in a variety of modalities.

They described the market potential, noting that 54 million Americans have disabilities and that one family in three has a person with a disability. More than half of all computer users over the age of 65 have some form of disability.

At the heart of the Victoria technology is the Abstracted UI Document, which relates UI interactions to UPnP methods and properties. With the Abstracted UI, the UPnP device does not need to be altered for different accessibility issues relating to user needs or preferences.  Instead, it offers both an XML representation and an XML-based abstraction of device functions, creating a standardized XML-based schema for device functions.

The second main component is the Universal Console or UC, which controls any device that is compliant with UPnP standards, making the device fully accessible to the Abstract User Interface.  The UC functions like a UPnP control point, running software to produce a customized User Interface. Developers and OEMs do not have to worry about a multitude of accessibility issues because this technology permits multi-device operability plus standardized access through the Universal Console.

A demo was given of how UC technology would interact with an Ethernet hub and a UPnP security camera. The presentation ended by noting this technology will increase revenue with minimal effort, provide a fast and easy way to comply with new government regulations and improve the lives of all customers, whether they have a disability or not.

Action: Kaneko/Roeder; Kaneko will send revised template of Microsoft presentation to Roeder and Roeder will register as document. [P6/8.1.1]

8.1.2 IBM Device Independent presentation.

Ref:

V2/01-0029 - Abstract of IBM Presentation at plenary #6
V2/01-0030 - IBM Presentation materials at plenary #6
VIEW   DOWNLOAD

Stephane Maes of IBM gave a presentation on a multi-modal computing framework to universal access. The presentation draws heavily on the work in XForm, device independent (DI) , Composite Capabilities and Preferences Profiles (CC/PP) and Wireless Application Protocol (WAP).

Maes reviewed material from the device independent working group. For some Web content or application to be device independent, it should satisfy seven principles:

• 1) it should be possible for a user to obtain a functional presentation associated with its Web page identifier via any access mechanism.
• 2) A Web page identifier that provides a functional presentation via one access mechanism should also provide a presentation of equivalent functionality via any other access mechanism.
• 3) It should be possible to provide a functional presentation, in response to a request for a Web page identifier, in any given delivery context that has an adequate access mechanism.
• 4) If a functional presentation of an application cannot be provided due to inherent limitations in the access mechanism, a functional presentation of an error message should be provided to the user.
• 5) If the author wishes, it should be possible to provide a customized presentation, in response to a request for a Web page identifier, in any given delivery context that has an adequate access mechanism.
• 6) The user agent should be able to associate the characteristics of the delivery context with a request of a particular Web page identifier.
• 7) It should be possible for a user to provide or update any presentation preferences as part of the delivery context.

Maes then presented an IBM proposal that is not an W3C DI-WG endorsed view. A diagram was shown that introduced an interaction logic layer. Maes said that XForms has all the characteristics needed and can bind the interface. he recommends that NCITS V2use XForms as the basis for the interaction logic layer and collaborate with W3C to recommend how to use it in a DI framework.

Maes discussed Multi modal computing. He offered some definitions:

• a channel as a particular user agent, device, or a particular modality,
• multi-channel applications are applications designed for ubiquitous access through different channels, one channel at a time, with no particular attention paid to synchronization or coordination across different channels,
• multi-modal applications are multi-channel applications, where multiple channels are simultaneously or sequentially available and synchronized.

There are no fundamental differences between multiple devices and multiple modalities. With multi-modal interaction the user can select at any time the preferred modality of interaction.  This concept can be extended to the selection of the preferred device.

Maes examined different multi-modal architectures and concluded the presentation with recommendations and suggestions to V2.

• propose a device-independent Framework for authoring and serving Device-Independent applications based on the use of interaction logic layer expressed in XForms and customization meta-data via annotations and style sheets.
• recommends multi-modal user interfaces as a way to adequately improve universal access and recommends a DOM-based MVC architecture.
• suggest considering multi-device browsing as a simple way to implement the concept of "remote Console" currently considered by NCITS V2 and recommends the same DOM-based MVC architecture.

Korn asked how much richness is obtainable in the interface and how far has IBM gone with prototyping. Maes responded that using interactive logic will produce functional but not rich interfaces. Device independent is a mix of 2 things: 1) functional access, and 2) a good experience for the user. The level of richness depends on the time and organization of the author. The value is in having access for all versus having access to only some channels.

Korn asked if IBM has built a demo using this approach for rich GUI and voice. Maes said yes, using tools for different channels allows decisions on how to change the flow. If the interaction affects only 1 channel, they can do specialized interfaces. A demo is not available to outsiders, but one could be made to V2. Korn suggested Maes provide a video of the demo.

Maes said the issue of customization is an open issue and needs more work. Korn suggested using device classes and have 1 customization for a class of UI. He asked if there has been any work on device classes.  Maes said he is not aware of such work.

Gilman said XForms is mature, but Device Independent is not far along enough for V2. He added that the existing work on URC assumes no author customization. The universal console does the binding to concrete.

Zimmermann asked Maes to contrast XForms with URC interactors. Maes responded that XForms is similar to the URC approach and recommends V2 embrace XForm rather than duplicate that effort.

Friedman said the original purpose of XForms is for web sites. V2 is looking at controlling devices where the client device needs to be in sync with the target. He asked how this requirement fits in with XForms. Maes responded that XForms can be loaded into a shell and synchronization passed through the shell. This is 1 way and there are others.

Friedman asked if event notification influences what the user sees and Maes said it does.  Friedman then asked if eventing would be an application outside XForm. Maes responded that it is optional to do that way or through a shell.

Gilman commented that V2 has help from an XForm editor volunteer, but also wants help from Maes.

LaPlant said comparing models is going to be very useful and worth pursuing. V2 will figure out the mechanism for doing this after the plenary.

8.2 ad hoc Group Reports.

8.2.1 Management.

Motion: (Vanderheiden/Chapman) that the management ad hoc group be reauthorize to act in the absent of the plenary with notification to the full V2.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Action: Roeder will attach manager conference call notes to the minutes. [P6/8.2.1]

Ref:

V2/01-0033 - Managers Conference Call notes through 12-6-2001

8.2.2 Framework.

Gilman led a discussion on how the protocol accomplishes the binding of the abstract to the specifics of the target, the URC, and the environment (i.e., the binding of the abstract to the concrete).  LaPlant said he concurs with the use of the term 'binding'. Gilman said in W3C XForms, there is a binding language.

Kindrick asked why the concern with manufacturers internal development issues. Gilman responded there is great concern about how much abstracting to do. The structure of what we do must not be too simple, yet not too hard for manufacturers to meet. There is anxiety about letting mode specific items into the standard. The main question is how rich a presentation can be achieved with the abstract UI.

Gilman said the dissemination plan, the business case, must focus on what the technology could deliver now, deliver in the near future and deliver in the far future. How to we get to the big picture if we are going by baby steps. Kindrick asked If the 'big picture' is other than the 4 modes of AIAP, of which URC is one. Vanderheiden said we should say 4 'dimensions' rather than 4 'modes'. Someone added that we need to show how the abstract terms play in other modes.

Roeder described a ticket-vending scenario where a theater seating is usually shown as a visual arrangement. There is information contained in the spatial relationships that is not expressed by the sequential rendering of the text. How can this information be conveyed in an accessible manner to the user?

Gilman said if the user has specific concern (e.g., near an aisle, how far from stage) there has to be a filtering for properties of concern. The content conveyed would not be just a random bit of text, but part of a larger entity that has different levels of drill down detail.

Zimmermann said we have an abstract interface that has all the functionality of the target and have binding to specific URC for enhanced visual layout. Gilman said AAIML may wind up being a binding of a schema, then there is the question of the properties themselves.

Chapman said we have more than 1 issue: 1) preferences, 2) effectiveness. We need enough language constructs in order to give fast access to quality of information. Caves said he has a concern about providing people with everything and no way to filter. We could end up making things more complicated. Kaneko said the question is what kind of information do we want to convey in the AbUI and what kind in the style.

Zimmermann will add this to open issues.

Kindrick said we should build in to the standard good design practices. Roeder added that WAI guidelines and section 508 standards define access levels that are really stretching into areas of usability. Vanderheiden said the standard may need mechanism to have better design as a recommendation, but not as a requirement.

LaPlant recommended we accumulate these ideas, then decide about them when we are near the time of publishing the standards.

Gilman said we still have an open issue around interactors for layering to consider. Layering needs properties. Vanderheiden said put this on the open items list. We should build a list of good ideas and later we may put them in an appendix as notes or hints, separate from the standard.  Kindrick said from other standards organizations, there is precedence for guidelines. he recommends V2 develop schema for standard, and later build guidelines for implementing them.

Gilman said the content will come out of scenario review, user level review and technical level review. People will point out problems and we need a way to capture them.  LaPlant said we may want to use the experience of the prototype teams and invite them to start this effort by providing some sort of diary. Gilman said he sees some problems with this. Some 'gotcha's may pop up all over the place.

Zimmermann suggested creating working groups for scenarios and prototyping. Gilman said do not put scenarios and prototyping in 1 group.

8.2.3 AIAP-RC Editing.

Zimmermann proposed a draft of a conceptual model to be added to the RC document. He said this came from the prototype experience and the purpose is to get a context of how the pieces fit together. The model names the essential components of the URC, shows the main interaction of the components and describes an architecture.

Action: Roeder will register conceptual model document presented by Zimmermann. [P6/8.2.3]

Ref:

V2/01-0031 - AIAP-URC-ConceptualModel-V1.3

Zimmermann reported on AIAP-URC draft working documents.

Ref:

V2/01-0027 - AIAP-URC Drafts (versions 1.1 through 1.9) and related issues documents

LaPlant said to add a caveat to all drafts of RC, Open issues and Closed Issues. he noted that no V2 standard is approved until reviewed by NCITS, and is still a working draft until ANSI accepts it as a standard.

Vanderheiden said to distinguish plenary closed issues from edit group-closed issues.

Zimmermann proposed to go over V2A closed items to get plenary approval for closing the item.  LaPlant said to capture the votes and any additional rationale.

The roll was called and the following were present:

Charles Sheppard, Dept. of Commerce, P
Bill LaPlant, Dept of Commerce, A
James Kindrick, ERIM, P
Shari Trewin, IBM, P
Nasser Ghazi, MICROSOFT, P
Masahiko Kaneko, MICROSOFT, A
Joe Roeder, NIB, P
Kevin Caves, RERC on Communication Enhancement, P
John A. Chapman, SHARE INC, P
Gregg Vanderheiden, TRACE CTR UNIV OF WISC, P
Gottfried Zimmermann, TRACE CTR UNIV OF WISC, A
Joy Relton, Unisys Corporation, P

A quorum was present.

Zimmermann presented versions 1.1 through 1.10 of the drafts and the following votes were taken:

Motion:  (Vanderheiden/Kindrick) that all additions up to version 1.4 be accepted.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Peter Korn, Sun Micro Systems, , P, joined by teleconference and the role increased to 9 voting members.

Motion: (Zimmermann/Sheppard) that all closed issues from version 1.4 through 1.6 be accepted.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Gilman noted item 11 should say markup is for structure and properties. LaPlant said this needs a more robust definition.

Action: Gilman will report on reopened item 11 of draft RC document on a more robust definition regarding TAGS, Markup, structure and properties. [P6/8.2.3]

Motion: (Zimmermann/Relton) that all changes from version 1.6 through 1.8, except for item 11, which is reopened, be accepted.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Vanderheiden noted that items 35 looks like item 76 but that 'scriptlets' is not mentioned in item 76. Zimmermann said item 76 will be modified to conform to item 35.

Vanderheiden recommended accepting item 87 but open a new item to refine the 'show/hide' protocol.

Action: Zimmermann will send open issue item related to discovery to Sheppard. [P6/ 8.2.3]

Following discussion, item 32 is taken off the table and reopened. Vanderheiden recommended breaking item 32 into separate parts.

Motion: (V2A ad hoc) that all closed item from versions 1.8 through 1.10, except that item 76 be modified to add a part on scriptlets per item 35, and excluding item 32, be accepted.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Motion: (Vanderheiden/Kindrick) that V2A be COMMENDED for active and productive work.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Motion: (V2A ad hoc) that AIAP RC draft version 1.10, except for the items removed, be accepted as the current draft and designated AIAP-RC draft RC version 2.0.
Friendly amendment: (Vanderheiden) that the following caveat be added to the open issues documents.
"IMPORTANT: PLEASE NOTE
ISSUES ON THIS LIST ARE NOT PART OF THE STANDARD AND MAY NEVER BE INCORPORATED.  THEY DO NOT REPRESENT CONSENSUS BY THE COMMITTEE.
(A single person can raise a question or suggestion that would appear here.  This is simply a listing of topics that came up in discussions or that were raised by someone and that have not yet been answered or resolved.)"
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

9. Discussion of tasks and priorities.

9.1 Working Sessions.

The tasks to be done were identified and divided into groups.

Action: Kaneko will send final work group tasks list to work-def and Roeder will register as document. [P6/9.1]

Ref:

V2/01-0036 - Task list and assigned work groups from Plenary #6

LaPlant named leaders for each group. The following list is the ad hoc work group names, the group leaders and the assigned tasks.

group:V2A - AIAP-RC draft editing
leader:Zimmermann
tasks:

• Drafting AIAP-RC document
• Comparison: XForms / AAIML
• Development of AIAP-URC proposal

group:V2B - Framework
leader:Gilman
tasks:

• Comparison: Controller architecture / difference versions of MVC
• Conceptual model
• Sharing model
• OSI model
• Framework
• Evaluation process

group:V2G - Glossary
leader:Kindrick
tasks:

• Glossaries
• Scenarios (Roadmaps)
• Prototyping

group:V2M - Metadata
leader:Sheppard
tasks:

• User needs and requirements (Metadata)
• Service Discovery (Metadata, etc.)
• Geographical location (localize target devices)
• Development of Metadata proposal

group:V2S - Security
leader:Chapman
tasks:

• Security & Privacy (Requirements, etc.)

10. New Items.

LaPlant said NCITS allows the technical committee chair to create permanent subgroups at any time. Then subgroups do not have to be re authorize at each plenary but subgroup officers must be trained, must report annually to the chair for the annual committee report, and must follow the same procedures as the full committee. He asked what is the members' preference and the consensus of the committee is to continue with the less formal ad hoc process.

Motion: (Caves/Sheppard) that ad hoc work groups be created as per the list posted by Kaneko.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Zimmermann said V2A will meet regularly on Tuesday at 2 PM (ET).

Gilman said V2B will meet on Wednesdays, 3 to 5 PM (ET).

Chapman suggested that the rest of the group leaders do scheduling in the managers conference call and that group leaders should find out who is on their groups.

Action: Ad hoc leaders (Zimmermann/Gilman/Kindrick/Sheppard/Chapman) post invitation and announcement of first conference calls to work-def. [P6/10]

LaPlant asked Sheppard to set up the group reflectors for V2M and V2G. The current reflectors will be as follows:

V2A for AIAP RC
V2B for framework
V2C for managers
V2G for glossary
V2M for metadata
V2S for security

Action: Sheppard will start up 2 additional servers v2s and v2m. [P6/10]

LaPlant appointed Kindrick to be the V2 vocabulary officer.

Action: (managers) Roeder will publish vocabulary officer with other officers on V2 web pages. [P6/10]

Zimmermann asked for clarification on who are the principal editors. Vanderheiden nominated Zimmermann to be editor in place of Vanderheiden. Trewin is the second editor. LaPlant said to find a volunteer in V2A to be the third editor.

The V2 managers conference call will be on Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 2 PM (ET).

Action: Sheppard/LaPlant will Set up conference call for V2 managers (V2C) and post announcement to work-def. [P6/10]

11. Future Meetings.

V2 Plenary #7 will be in Nashville, March 7-8, 2002. This plenary is co located with the SHARE conference.

LaPlant suggested plenary #8 could potentially be hosted by RESNA in June in Minneapolis. The RESNA conference is June 27 to July 1, 2002.

Action: Kevin Caves will check with RESNA about hosting plenary #8 in June. [P6/11]

12. Summary of Action Items.

13. Adjournment.

Motion: (Sheppard/Caves) to adjourn.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

SUMMARY OF REFERENCES IN THESE MINUTES

V2/01-SD-01 - List of Members and Contact Information
V2/01-SD-03 - V2 ACTION ITEMS LIST
V2/01-0020 - Draft Minutes for plenary meeting #5 of V2, 7/30-31/2001)
V2/01-0023R1 - Revised Draft Agenda for rescheduled meeting #6 of V2, 11/27-28/2001
V2/01-0025 -NCITS V2 Annual Report
V2/01-0025A - Slide Presentation to NCITS on V2
V2/01-0027 - AIAP-URC Drafts (versions 1.1 through 1.9) and related issues documents
V2/01-0029 - Abstract of IBM Presentation at plenary #6
V2/01-0030 - IBM Presentation materials at plenary #6
V2/01-0031 - AIAP-URC-ConceptualModel-V1.3
V2/01-0032 - Updated Microsoft presentation at plenary #6
V2/01-0033 - Managers Conference Call notes through 12-6-2001
V2/01-0036 - Task list and assigned work groups from Plenary #6
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm#PART 1194 Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ - Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Home Page
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/ - User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/ - WAI User Agent Guidelines Home Page
http://computer.org/standards/Internet/index.htm - Internet Practices Standards Working Group
http://www.accessibilityforum.org/index.html - Accessibility Forum Home Page
http://projects.accessibilityforum.org - Accessibility Forum Projects

ATTACHMENT - Final Agenda- NCITS V2 Rescheduled Plenary Meeting #6