RE: Minutes of the tele-conference CIQ meeting held on 15 January 2001

Sorry guys

I forgot to enclose the DTD in my earlier mail. Here it is.

Ram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Buller [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:01 AM
> To: 'Ram Kumar'; 
> Subject: RE: Minutes of the tele-conference CIQ meeting held on 15
> January 2001
> 
> 
> Ram, all,
> 
> >
> > Vincent, I have enclosed the updated NAML version.
> 
> Thanks! I will have a look at it soon. WOuld you care to also 
> send the DTD
> itself?
> 
> 
> > we agreed during the meeting that for some of the terms used
> > in the Global
> > address
> > spec., we are not sure what it means as the document was not
> > complete and we
> > agreed
> > that we will have more examples from your people who 
> created the dtd.
> 
> I have sent you guys updated documentation of our GlobalAddress
> specification, and I welcome any comments. My worries though 
> are related to
> timelines and creating unnecessary interdependencies. Inserting the
> GlobalAddress spec into NAML does NOT depend on getting more 
> sample data -
> we work with the spec all the time, and the level of documentation is
> similar to what I've seen for NAML. If we agree to that we're fine.
> 
> What I said in December is that I acknowledge the need for 
> people unknown to
> the Address field of work, unlike you and me, to have 
> real-world sample data
> to increase the level of trust they have in the structure's ability to
> express real-world data. All I'm saying now is that getting 
> these samples
> may take some time, and we should not let our progress depend on that.
> 
> 
> > > What we talked about at our kickoff meeting is to make an 
> extensible
> > > multilevel definition. For example, for Address this would
> > > mean that one
> > > should be able to markup a street as a whole
> > (street&premise:"prinses
> > > julianastraat 26") or in parts (street:"prinses julianastraat",
> > > premise:"26"). This is a next step that we can start 
> discussing now.
> 
> Sorry guys, I may have misled you. Looking at my notes from 
> the kickoff
> meeting we did not even plan to do this for V0.5! Quote:
> v0.5
> - First integrate MSI and AND work, start 1st week of Jan 2001
> - Release first draft xNAL and xCIL (DTD and documentation), 
> 31st March 2001
> - Public comments by 30th April
> - Review and integration 15th May, release 0.5
> 
> v1.0
> - Multilayer address bit
> <================================================================
> - Extensible customer information
> - Preliminary date: Public review August 15th 2001
> - Comments by Sept 30th
> - Release Oct 31st
> 
> v1.1
> - Internationalization, de-westernization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > I am currently converting the GlobalAddress DTD to the latest
> > > W3C schema
> > > definition; this allows us to be more expressive as we 
> discussed in
> > > December. Ram, did you look at XML Schema and can you have a go at
> > > converting your specification?
> > >
> >
> > I think we said that we will have an XML Schema for XNAL and
> > XCIL in version
> > 2.0
> > and not in this version. We have to be very careful when
> > defining the Schema
> > for
> > names and addresses and in fact other customer data as the 
> size of the
> > fields
> > varies from country to country. For example, street names and
> > person names
> > are extremely large in Asian countries like India, 
> Srilanka, etc. For
> > example,
> > my full name is: PARUVACHI VENKATACHALAM RAMKUMAR
> 
> Do you mind if we just keep calling you Ram? ;-)
> 
> I could not find any reference to using schema in my notes, 
> but I remember
> is that you would have a look at Schema to see if you could 
> easily switch.
> If so, we'd use it, otherwise not.
> 
> By the way, using XML Schema does not enforce you to use all 
> the expressive
> power; in other words, your samples of having to define field 
> lengths is not
> a requirement for using schemas. It is possible to use XML 
> Schema as the
> language, yet define nothing more or less than with a DTD.
> 
> I would still like to use schema for this version; it's not that hard.
> However, if you still feel it takes too much time or it increases
> uncertainty too much we could save it for the next version (1.0 in our
> December numbering).
> 
> An introduction to Schema which helped me to get started:
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/11/29/schemas/part1.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > Ram, did you hear anything from the DocBook people on the
> > > e-mail you sent
> > > them?
> >
> > I sent a couple of e-mails to Norman Walsh of the DocBook and
> > have not heard anything so far.
> 
> Well, it's in their interest too. I don't think we have a lot 
> of time to
> spare :-)
> 
> 
> > BTW, Bad Husick of Vignette, who was leading the CPEXchange
> > group has left the group as he resigned from Vignette.
> 
> That doesn't simplify things either.... I would have loved to 
> hear from them
> what has happened to CPExchange's privacy policy being 
> questioned.... Does
> Karl know?
> 
> Cheers,
> Vincent
>