Re: ISO Time frame (was Re: Meeting minutes 2017-06-06)

Thanks Makoto and Leonard.
I think that we are in-sync with the time frame.
The next revision of accessibility specs will take some time, it will take us to 1st half of 2018. 
And we were thinking of starting the ISO work in parallel, so that ISO standard is released in 2019 time frame.

I think that we need to explore some variables before we start this work, which would require discussions in a subgroup totally focused on this topic.

With regards
Avneesh
From: AUDRAIN LUC 
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:18
To: Leonard Rosenthol ; MURATA Makoto ; Cristina Mussinelli 
Cc: W3C Publishing Business Group 
Subject: Re: ISO Time frame (was Re: Meeting minutes 2017-06-06)

Thank you Leonard and Makoto,

On the European Commission side, we need to confirm that a TS is a acceptable basis for a european standard.

With the precious information you gave us, Cristina and I will check.

Best,
Luc


De : Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date : jeudi 8 juin 2017 à 03:43
À : MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Objet : Re: ISO Time frame (was Re: Meeting minutes 2017-06-06)
Renvoyer - De : <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Renvoyer - Date : jeudi 8 juin 2017 à 03:43


Makoto-san – I agree that if the plan is TS (which we talked about before and I still would approve of) then we can skip some stages = but you still have two ballots and hope for no technical comments.   

 

Leonard

 

From: <eb2mmrt@gmail.com> on behalf of MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 7:56 PM
To: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ISO Time frame (was Re: Meeting minutes 2017-06-06)
Resent-From: <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 7:57 PM

 

Leonard, 

 

I do not think we should try to create an International Standard.  Since 

EPUB is ISO/IEC TS 30135, our goal for EPUB Accessibility should be a 

TS (Technical Specification).  It is simply impossible to create an IS 

based on a TS using the normal process.

 

This means that neither a CD nor a DIS is needed.  We only need a 

Proposed Draft Technical Specification.  It requires a two month ballot.

The New Work Item Proposal certainly needs a ballot, which requires
three months.  I thus think that one year is a reasonable guess.

 

What is a bit complicated is the parallel ballot.  Since ISO/IEC JTC1/JWG7 

is a joint working group bySC34, IEC TC100/TA10, and ISO TC46, 

we need a parallel ballot for the PDTS.  But the NWIP ballot can be 

done in SC34 only.  I spoke with the SC34 secretariat about this and made 

sure.

 

Regards,

Makoto









 

2017-06-07 23:53 GMT+09:00 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>:

  I just want to comment on the comment from the minutes that the timeframe will be “about 1 year”.

   

  One year is pretty much the minimum for a standard process.  This assumes two review periods (CD then DIS) and assumes that ZERO technical comments are received on the document during either review period.  If any technical comments are received on the CD, then you add a minimum of 3 months for an additional CD review period.   (and then repeat until you believe that no more technical comments will be received, at which point you go to DIS.)

   

  To be more specific, the process looks like:

  ·         Submit New Work Item (NWI) Committee Draft (CD)

  ·         Document is out for 12 week review

  ·         ISO committee needs to meet to review/dispose the comments

  o    Normally this will happen at standard face to face meetings throughout the year, though a special “phone meeting” can be called with enough notice BUT requires a minimum number (5) of Participating (P) country/member bodies to be present to conduct business

  ·         Based on the resolution of comments, either a second CD OR a Draft International Standard (DIS) is produced and sent for review

  o    CD will require minimum 8 week review

  o    DIS requires a 20 week (5 month) review

  ·         ISO committee needs to meet to review/dispose the comments

  ·         If a CD had been done, then you would now (hopefully!) go to DIS (though may end up with another CD)

  ·         If DIS was successful without any technical comments, document can go direct to publication

  ·         If DIS received technical comments, then a Final DIS (FDIS) would need to be produced (and then needs an 8 week review + meeting)

  ·         Once FDIS is approved, then its “off to publication”

   

  (I need to make a flowchart of this ☺)

   

  Hope that helps.

   

  Leonard

   

  From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
  Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 5:44 AM
  To: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
  Subject: Meeting minutes 2017-06-06
  Resent-From: <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
  Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:44:21 +0000

   

  The minutes are here:

   

  https://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-pbg-minutes.html

   

  Cheers

   

  Ivan


  ----
  Ivan Herman, W3C 
  Publishing@W3C Technical Lead

  Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
  mobile: +31-641044153

  ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704

   





 

-- 


Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto