Meeting Location: This meeting was hosted by the Wireless RERC at the Georgia Centers for Telecommunications Technology (GCATT), in Atlanta, GA, in conjunction with the RESNA Conference Technology and Disability 2003 at the Hyatt Regency, Atlanta, GA..

Meeting Dates:

1. Call to Order

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

2. Introduction of attendees

Ref:

V2 members

Liaisons

Observers and guests

3. Approval of the Agenda

Ref:

Zimmermann requested dropping agenda item "• 9.2.2.2.5 Discovery (??)".

The agenda, as modified, was approved by unanimous consent. See the attached revised agenda.

4. Approval of the Minutes for plenary meeting #11

Ref:

The draft minutes of V2 plenary #11 (V2/03-0044), as presented, was approved by unanimous consent.

5. Review of action items

Ref:

This agenda item was postponed and was not taken up during the plenary.

6. Administrative Reports

6.1 Officer Remarks

6.1.1 Chair

LaPlant said his term as chair of V2 will expire in 2004 and there will be a call for nominations around the time of plenary #13 in October, 2003. He also said he intends to reapply for the position of chair although he may be a delegate for a different organization because of his retirement from the Census Bureau at the Department of Commerce.

6.1.2 Vice Chair

Haritos-Shea complimented ad hoc group V2A for an outstanding job on the draft AIAP-URC specification.

She noted that the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopted Dublin Core as the metadata standard.

She also noted that Bill LaPlant received an award from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for his contributions to Section 508.

Haritos-Shea gave a review of the standards process. This review is based on the INCITS training for TC delegates.

6.1.3 International Representative

Ref:

See agenda item 8.1.

6.1.4 Secretary

Roeder said the presentation materials for the plenary are already posted and available online. Access codes for V2 documents and archives were provided to the members present.

6.2 Roll Call of Members in Jeopardy Due to Failure to Attend Meetings

LaPlant said no jeopardy letters have been sent out.

6.3 New member recruiting

LaPlant said this is ongoing and that members should let V2 officers know of new prospects.

6.4 INCITS Training

LaPlant said he will ask INCITS to accept the review given by Haritos-Shea as comparable training.

7. Review of Related Activities

7.1 ISO/IEC JTC1 SC 36

Ref:

Farance said there have been working group and rapporteur meetings since the last SC 36 plenary. He summarized the activities and how they affect V2.

WG1 -vocabulary

Farance recommended V2 take an interest in this area and said the following documents are helpful.

• ISO 704 (on development of terminological methods)
• ISO 1087, part 1 (terminology of terminology)

Farance said he will get access to these documents (password protected) for V2.

WG2 Collaborative Technology

A topic to be addressed at the September meeting is functional accommodation features. An area of critical interest is the cooperative workplace (collaboration environment).

WG3 Participant Information

This group has 3 projects: participant identifiers, functional accommodation information, and performance information. The functional accommodation information is along the lines of the World Health Organization classification of functions and ISO 9999 on taxonomy of assistive technology. V2 should be interested in supporting either a registry based aproach or a more up-to-date list  of assistive technology so they can be used as accommodation markers.

LaPlant asked Farance to send an email on who maintains the registry.

WG4 Management & Delivery

An IEEE project for learning object metadata migrated to SC 36 and this WG is addressing organizational needs, missing features, etc. They are considering metadata questions and Farance noted they are using ISO Topic Maps (ISO 13250). These are external markup techniques for packaging content which should be of interest to V2.

wg5 quality metrics

This group is developing quality metrics which uses a technique of ISO 11179 and the notion of data element concepts. This is a formal way of looking at the aspects of quality. Farance said this might be of interest to V2 when looking at assistive technology accommodations and how well they perform. This is not setting performance requirements but consistent measurements of performance.

CLFA rapporteur group

Farance reported on the progress since his previous reports. He noted comments on several documents, including 18036 (on icons), the IMS concept and the SENS workshop agreement on language capabilities.

Gilman asked about the convergence for the SC36 and IMS approaches in this area and asked if there is a documents available describing the SC36 approach. Farance referred to the January meeting report, document 402 on the SC36 web site. He said he will provide to V2 a reference to the document describing the CLFA approach.

ACTION ITEM: (Farance) provide to V2 a reference to the document describing the CLFA approach. [P12/7.1]

rapporteur group on profiles

The rapporteur group on profiles will be looking at how people characterize profile brandname markers. This is a profiles technique for pointing at normative referencing specifications. This allows for pointing, without actually naming brandnames, to documents which are not standards to identifies specifications and send a profile

Farance said V2 could help SC36 by contributing improvements to the assistive technology taxonomy for ISO 9999. LaPlant said he and Sheppard will follow up on that after the V2 draft specification is released.

7.2 Web Accessibility Initiative

Ref:

See item 7.8.2.

7.3 IEEE P1621 Standard for User Interface Elements in Power Control of Electronic Devices Employed in Office/Consumer Environments

Ref:

No report.

7.4 Accessibility Forum

Ref:

Haritos-Shea said the Forum was given time and funding to turn the paper tools they developed into electronic tools.

7.5 Access Board Proposed Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards

Ref:

Haritos-Shea said the second Department of Justice survey on section 508 performance is due to be finished by August. This is a very short turnaround time for federal departments and may be impacted by the recent reorganization of some agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security.

7.6 Universal Plug and Play Forum

Ref:

Zimmermann said V2 is getting some interest from the UP&P community as a result of the ACM CHI presentation. A subgroup on remote I/O is working on the technical framework for discovery. LaPlant noted we have a lot of work to do in this area.

7.7 Dublin Core

Ref:

Nevile said she, LaPlant and Sheppard submitted a paper for the DC2003 conference. The paper is in review and is part of the strategy to enroll Dublin Core into adding the metadata elements essential to support the interests of V2.

7.8 Other

7.8.1 INCITS L8 Metadata

Ref:

Sheppard said Judith Newton, chair of L8, communicated that they has been preparing new versions of ISO/IEC 11179, Metadata Registries (MDR), parts 1 (framework), 4 (definitions), 5 (naming and identifications) and 6 (registrations), based on member comments on the recent CD and FCD ballot.

Version 2 of 11179, Part 3 (Registry Metamodel and Basic Attributes) was released last January and they are preparing to work on version 3. She also said that a proposed new project (NP) for a document, "information technology metadata for technical standards and specifications", was just approved.

LaPlant said metadata registry will be a mechanism to assist in managing the details for the various components of the V2 standard and we need to know the rules and procedures for their use.

7.8.2 Related W3C Activities

7.8.2.1 XForms

Trewin said the AIAP-URC standard is using some features of XForms. Following the release of a V2 draft standard, a dialog with the XForms group will hopefully lead to convergence of the overlapping aspects of the 2 standards.

7.8.2.2 WAI WCAG, ATAG, UAAG

Haritos-Shea said the Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) group had a meeting at NIST. IBM was encouraged to present IBM's software accessibility guidelines to be sanctioned by the W3C.

7.8.2.3 Multimodal Interaction & Device Independence & Protocols and Formats

Gilman said the web accessibility and the device independent groups sponsored a developers track at the W3C conference. The workshop discussed authoring tools and there was some agreement with the abstract UI approach of the AIAP-URC.

Gilman reminded members that there is a new framework draft for multimodal interactions which he posted to the V2 reflector.

7.8.2.4 Research & Development

LaPlant said the research and development interest (RDI) group held a web based conference to discuss technologies that support collaborative document development on the web. Zimmermann was one of the presenters. More information on the activities of the Research and Development Interest Group (RD IG) can be found at www.w3c.org/wai/rd/.

7.8.3 NIST Smart Space

Roucoux said NIST Smart Space is developing a transport protocols which allows [media] conversion between devices. Smart Space is allowed to have complex strategies. They are working on version 2 which will have an easier interface, have a short turnaround and have document libraries.

7.8.4 INCITS M1, T4, B10

Price said that there are security experts at Georgia Tech, but none that is associated with the Wireless RERC.

Gilman suggested we add to the agenda a discussion about the security issues and what we need to do about them. LaPlant added this as item 11.3.

7.8.5 OASIS User Interface Markup Language

LaPlant said OASIS UIML has not responded to his letters but he still wants to establish contact. He does not want a separate and competing activity that won't support the V2 protocol. The OASIS UIML is not a formal standards organization but they can influence the areas that interest V2.

7.8.6 ACM SIG CHI

LaPlant said at the ACM SIG CHI conference, there was a special interest group meeting that sparked a lot if interest in V2. He said this is a good recruiting venue.

7.8.7 WWW 2003 Budapest

Gilman said the web accessibility and the device independent groups sponsored a developers track at the W3C conference. The workshop discussed authoring tools and there was some agreement with the abstract UI approach of the AIAP-URC.

7.8.8 ACM UUC 2003

Trewin said she, Vanderheiden and Zimmermann submitted a paper for the November ACM conference on user usability (CUU) in Vancouver. The paper discusses various abstract languages for representing user interfaces and the requirements for universal usability.

Vanderheiden is also giving a paper at the HCI meeting in Greece to present an overview of the V2 approach and invite participation. He said the work we are doing needs to be an international effort. LaPlant added that a single international standard is essential.

Vanderheiden said Zimmermann is moving back to Germany and will continue his association with Trace. This will provide an opportunity to further involve the european community.

Zimmermann said the Trace prototype has moved to the new architecture and will probably be shown at the October plenary meeting.

8. US TAG to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC 35 User interfaces Sub Committee

Ref:

8.1 Status of IR

Zimmermann said he has begun his new duties as the IR officer for V2. A password protected reflector, v2sc35@nist.gov, has been established for discussions on TAG matters and to post/archive relevant documents.

8.2 Cultural & Linguistics Meeting Geneva

Zimmermann said all documents relating to SC35 are posted to the V2SC35@NIST.GOV reflector and can be found in the list archives.

Zimmermann participated in a U.S. delegation to the JTC1 meeting on Cultural and Linguistics matters in Geneva. See reports on the meeting in the V2SC35 reflector archives at

8.3 SC 35

Zimmermann said the purpose of V2 participation is to get our work into an international standard. There are 2 strategies for doing this: 1- share our expertise with SC35 and support an SC35 standard, or 2- complete a U.S. standard and fast track it through JTC1. Zimmermann favored the latter since this would not conflict with the current work of SC35 and would be less taxing of V2 resources. Also, the V2 standard has a broader market application. He said we should keep SC35 informed on the progress of the V2 standard and comment on the work of SC35.

LaPlant noted that the work of SC35 is about user interfaces in general, not just accessibility and that mainstream appeal has always been part of the business case for developing the V2 standard. He noted that various proposals have been made for a conference or workshop on the application or implementation of the V2 standard by mainstream interests.

Trewin asked how SC35 would perceive the 2 options and how much support would SC35 provide. Zimmermann said we should defer a decision until we know more about how SC35 operates. He said the next SC35 meeting will be in December in either Paris or Germany and that they will have a telecom in October. He said they expressed interest in a meeting in the U.S. but Zimmermann said V2 should attend an SC35 meeting before offering to host a meeting.

8.4 Discussion for Joint Meeting between V2 and SC 35 - Sponsorship & Funding Requirements

LaPlant said an approach, sometimes used by other TCs involved with international standards, is for V2 to work on the standard with joint meetings or teleconferences with the relevant working groups of SC35. This would produce an appropriate standard that could be recommended to SC35. He emphasized that we would absolutely need to know how flexible SC35 would be in their document development process and whether they would allow V2 to take the lead.

V2 has deadline to meet and cannot participate with SC35 until then. V2 could share the documents and ask for feedback.

After more discussion about joint meetings, the V2 members decided to make no decision at this time.

9. Presentations

9.1 Technical presentations

9.1.1 Philips Abstract Interface Effort

Ref:

Walter Dees of Philips Research Electronics gave a presentation on Device Independent User Interfaces.

VIEW Presentation slides on Device Independent User Interfaces by Philips Research, presented at plenary #12

9.1.2 Wireless RERC Prototype Implementation [Elevator]

• Ed Price introduced the Wireless RERC presentation of the Prototype Implementation based on an elevator scenario. Jeremy Johnson gave an overview and demonstration. An IPAQ tablet pc with UP&P is used as the URC and an elevator simulation, written by Jeff Wilson, is used as the target.
  
  Johnson said they discovered that many of the technologies V2 relies on, such as XPath, are not available on lightweight platforms like PDAs and cell phones. Another problem encountered is the browser in pocket pc 2002 is compatible with a very old version of internet explorer and lacks some of the functionality needed. However, pocket pc 2003, just released to developers, has an IE 5.5 compatible browser which should resolve this.
  
  The technologies used for this prototype include Microsoft .NET and the UP&P SDK by Intel. The target device offers a description service and a control service. This simulation includes a mechanism, not part of the URC protocol, for forwarding connection from one target to another target,.which is useful when dealing with a system of targets.
  
  Another major component is an XForm processor. The URC synthesizes the UI Socket, pret and default resources into an XHTML document with XForms that is loaded into the browser component.
  
  Some issues discovered through this implementation include the inability to dynamically change variable labels in resource documents and the UP&P global broadcasting of state variables which, for instance, might forward all users instead of just one user to a new target.
  

9.1.3 NIST Smart Space Prototype Implementation Status

Ref:

V2/03-0053 - slides of NIST Prototype presented at plenary#12

 

Perrine Roucoux gave a presentation on the NIST Smart Space Prototype Implementation Status.

 

VIEW slides of NIST Prototype presented at plenary#12

 

Following the presentation there were questions and discussion. V2  endorsed  the Roucoux approach.

 

9.2 Ad hoc task group reports

 

9.2.1 V2A - AIAP-URC Editing

Ref:

V2/03-0056 Slides of V2A report at plenary #12
V2/03-0050 GVDrawing_06-17-03

 

• Trewin outlined the agenda items to be covered by the plenary regarding the AIAP standard documents.

 

VIEW Slides of V2A report at plenary #12

 

Vanderheiden gave an overview and used a diagram to describe the AIAP standard. This was folowed by several comments and a discussion of terms. LaPlant said the terms needed to be collected into a glossary and haritos-Shea volunteered to collect them and post them on the V2Access web site.  Changes were incorporated, resulting in a revised diagram.

 

VIEW GVDrawing_06-17-03

 

9.2.1.1 Document Organization, Components & Terminology

Ref:

http://cio.nist.gov/esd/emaildir/lists/v2c/msg00423.html (password required)

 

Trewin referred to the pieces in the diagram and summarized which ones are written up and which ones still need to be done. Draft documents for the overview, UI Socket, Label& Help Resources and Presentation Template language are to be reviewed during this plenary. Still missing are documents for default semantic resources for the portal, generic specification of the portal (including the socket and the discovery and session management), guidelines for implementing the target network link, generic URC specification, and guidelines for implementing the URC network link.

 

Trewin noted some terms that have caused confusion because they have been used in ways different than they are defined in the documents  and She requested agreement to use  the definitions in the documents.

 

MOTION: (V2A) that V2 will endorse the concepts and terminology in the document AIAP-URC dated 2003-06-03.

The motion passed by unanimous consent.

 

9.2.1.1.1 Discussion of Document "Conformance with AIAP" or "Target Manufacturer Implementation Guidance"

 

gilman gave some ideas on how to tell the V2 story to implementers, which should be different than how the AIAP concept is presented in the standard documents. He said, for implementers to commit to the V2 standard, the story needs to be clear and complete with no lurking 'gotchas'.

 

The deal for the target manufacturers includes:
• The targets must support operation by a remote console, be self documented per AIAP standard, and support discovery and retrieval of these documents
• The URC may change the interface (language, appearance and flow), but will remain faithful to the business logic of the tasks supported by the target. Working examples of how the interface may change are provided.

 

The deal for the URC manufacturers might includes:

• The URC must implement some networking platform to communicate with the target.
• the URC must be able to perform the AIAP-URC discovery bootstrap process.
• the URC must cover the full language of the documents furnished by the target.
• The URC must be able to generate a concrete representation for any socket interface element, and may discover and use resources outside the target where permitted.
• The URC may process or decline to process any optional formats.

 

Some possible questions from target manufacturers:

• If a particular networking platform is implemented, are the implementation notes normative?
• Are any of these available or required: developer tools, reference URCs (for testing), services to help with interface attraction process, services to help with conformance assessment?

 

Some possible questions from URC manufacturers:

• If a particular networking platform is implemented, are the implementation notes normative?
• Are any of the following available: sample targets for testing, a central directory for resources?

 

9.2.1.2 Review of AIAP-URC Standard

Ref:

V2/03-0057 V2A draft documents (in WORD format) presented at Plenary #12

 

9.2.1.2.1 Overview

 

The plenary considered the Overview document. Zimmermann and Trewin collected the comments as they were raised and discussed.

 

9.2.1.2.2 UI Socket

 

The plenary considered the UI Socket document. Zimmermann and Trewin collected the comments as they were raised and discussed.

 

9.2.1.2.3 Presentation Template

 

The plenary considered the Presentation Template document. Zimmermann and Trewin collected the comments as they were raised and discussed.

 

9.2.1.2.4 Label& Help Resources

 

The plenary considered the Label& Help Resources document. Zimmermann and Trewin collected the comments as they were raised and discussed.

 

9.2.1.3 Release of Draft to Outside Experts

 

Zimmermann said V2A wants to send the draft documents to some outside experts to get some feedback prior to release for public comment . LaPlant said the caveat clause needs to be included in all the documents and that any experts must respond in writing or by email to the V2 officers indicating that they understand and accept the copyrights of INCITS on these documents.  This will be provided in an accompanying readme file.  He added that members may freely distribute within their own organization but should maintain a record of who received the documents.

 

Zimmermann said the documents to be shared with outside experts include the 4 draft documents plus the discovery section of AIML 5.0. Gilman confirmed that the discovery section will be edited to remove any parts that are in contradiction with the draft documents.

 

LaPlant said it is critical that everybody on work-def be aware that V2 is almost ready for mileston 6, the public review of the standard, and member organizations should be looking carefully at the draft documents.

 

MOTION (V2A) that the existing set of documents (URC overview, socket description, presentation template and label and help resources), supplemented with the V2 disclaimers, the AAIML 5.0 discovery section modified as described in Plenary #12, and a readme file, can be made available to outside experts as working papers.

The motion passed by unanimous consent.

 

9.2.1.4 Discussion of Document Set

 

Not covered.

 

9.2.1.5 Work Plan for Developing Draft for Public Review, includes how to deal with presentation template

 

Trewin said we have a proposal that the portal should have some kind of presentation hints but not a clear statement of what needs to be captured there. The presentation template language has some elements (from AIML and from other abstract languages that describe user interfaces) which are not in the socket. V2A proposes to continue to work on the presentation template language as a possible mechanism for presentation hints in order to discover more about the requirements. There was discussion but not enough time to reach a concensus for a motion.

 

9.2.2 V2E - Editing & Web Sites Status

 

No report.

 

9.2.3 V2G - Glossary/scenarios

 

No report.

 

9.2.5 V2M - Metadata

 

No report.

 

9.2.6 V2S - Security

 

No report.

 

10. Discussion of Tasks and Priorities.

 

10.1 Working Sessions.

 

See agenda items under 9.2.1.

 

11. Pending Items.

 

11.1 Planning for Implementors' Workshop.

 

Not covered.

 

11.2 V2 Server.

 

No report.

 

11.3 Security issues and what we need to do about them

 

LaPlant said he and Haritos-Shea will get someone to draft some proposals on how to handle security at various times.

 

ACTION ITEM (LaPlant Haritos-Shea) get someone to draft some proposals on how to handle security at various times. [P12/11.3]

 

12. New Items.

 

MOTION: (V2A) that V2a shall be reconstituted, Drs Zimmermann and Trewin chairing, with the goal of preparing a proposed set of official documents for public review for the October plenary in (partial) satisfaction of our INCITS approved project to develop an AIAP standard. V2a shall be empowered to resolve issues within the current document set and share the modified documents with invited experts after plenary approval via a 48 hour review period.

The motion passed by unanimous consent.

 

MOTION: (Price, Trewin)to create an ad hoc working group (V2b, chaired by Mr Price) that will create a project proposal for the next version of AIAP.

The motion passed by unanimous consent.

 

MOTION: (LaPlant, Haritos-Shea) to create ad hoc working groups v2m (chaired by Sheppard) on metadata and v2g (chaired by Haritos-Shea) on glossary and web site.

The motion passed by unanimous consent.

 

MOTION: (Roeder, Price) to create ad hoc working group v2c (chaired by LaPlant), on management issues, that has the power to act on behalf of the plenary between plenary #12 and plenary #13.

The motion passed by unanimous consent.

 

13. Future Meeting

 

13.1 October, 2003, Trace, Madison, WI

 

Plenary 13 will be held October7-9, 2003, at Trace, in Madison, WI.

 

13.2 2004

 

LaPlant suggested plenary #14 should be in January or February at NIST and coordinated with an implementers workshop.

 

14. Summary of Action Items.

Ref:

V2/sd-03 - V2 ACTION ITEMS

 

VIEW Summary of V2 ACTION ITEMS LIST for P12

 

15. Adjournment.

 

Plenary meeting #12 of V2 adjourned on June  18, 2003, at 4:46 PM (ET).

 

ATTACHMENTS:

Final Agenda for meeting #12 of V2, 6/17-18/2003