From: Joan Aliprand [jaliprand@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 23:20 To: edwin.hart@jhuapl.edu Cc: joan_Aliprand@notes.rlg.org Subject: RE: Yamazaki-San Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:00 Flag Status: Flagged Ed: I was working on our reply to Yamazaki-san, and I discovered a hole that we might want to plug by sending a late-breaking addition in response to Cathy's request for comments. Here's how I stumbled across the hole. It is clear to us (if not to Yamazaki-san) that the SA supplies the mapping and that it has to be in machine-readable form. But then (as I was working on the draft reply and addressing your question about who is responsible for making updates) I wondered "What happens if an SA submits only a mapping in printed form?" Is someone responsible for turning this into a machine-readable version? If so, who? Our text is silent about this. In FDIS Clause 12.4, the RA gets to negotiate with the SA over an application that fails to meet a stated list of requirements. But the list does not say anything about requirements for a mapping that may be in the application. If the mapping came in on paper, there is no rule to justify the RA asking for it to be redone in machine-readable form. Clause 12.5 says "if there's a mapping, use Clause 13", so I suppose one could argue that Clause 13.2 applies ("not technically suitable according to Annex A.2"), but that is rather broad and fuzzy. It also entails circulation of the application to the RA-JAC to get this ruling. How I would like to plug this hole is to add an additional item to the list in Clause 12.4, to sanction immediate action by the RA. The RA would then be able to inform the SA that while a mapping *may be* submitted on paper, it *has to be* supplied in machine-readable form too. Supplying the m-r copy would be a "change needed to meet the requirement{s)" (final para. of Clause 12.4), and the SA is responsible for carrying out the work (like all other changes requested by the RA). Here is the proposed additional item: -- When an application for registration includes a mapping to ISO/IEC 10646, the mapping shall be supplied in machine-readable form. (You will recognize that I have based this on Yamazaki-san's proposed addition for FCD Clause 12.1.4, which should be acknowledged.) Do you agree that this is needed? I hope so, because we could then respond to Yamazaki-san that we agreed with his concern (as you already said) but found a more appropriate place for the text. Though the problem he identified is different, his proposed solution -- say in the text (not just in the annex) "the mapping has to be in m-r form" -- fixes my hole. I'd also like to propose a few more tweaks: a) Though I didn't think the rewording for A.2.5 that you proposed solved all of Yamazaki-san's problem, I do appreciate that your new wording is clearer, so let's ask for it. b) In FDIS Clauses 11.1.2, change "(see annex A.1.2)" to "(as specified in Annex A.1.2") for consistency with the wording of Clause 11.1.3 and also to emphasize the requirement for conformity with the provisions of the Annex. ["(see annex B.1)" in this Clause is ok, because it's merely a pointer to more information, and does not imply conformity.] c) Similarly, in FDIS Clause 11.1.4, change "(see annex A.2)" to "(as specified in Annex A.2)" to obligate the SA to follow the provisions of A.2 when providing a mapping. d) Editorial: References to specific clauses and annexes in the text occur as either titlecase or all lowercase. The lowercase occurrences should be changed to titlecase. (Reference: ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, Clause 6.6.7.3 "References to elements of text") e) Editorial: Change title of Annex E from "Example mapping table" to "Example of a mapping table" (following the style of the title of Annex D.6). I will hold off on drafting our close-out response to Yamazaki-san until I hear from you. I know this may not be immediately because of the wedding. All the best, -- Joan At 05:16 PM 7/11/02 -0700, you wrote: >Ed: > >Since your reply included proposed text and this wasn't included in the US >comments, perhaps we should craft a reply from the two of us explaining how >this came about. That would also give us a change to address Yamazaki-san's >original concern and his A.1 and A.2 options. > >I know that you have lots on your plate at home (home plate? :-) with >wedding preparations, so I am cc'ing myself at home to see if I can draft >something one night. > >-- Joan > > > > > > "Hart, > Edwin > > F." To: > "'Joan_Aliprand@notes.rlg.org'" > > uapl.edu> Subject: RE: > Yamazaki-San > > > 07/11/2002 > > 05:03 > AM > > > > > > > > > >Joan, > >Thanks for your insight and comments. I'll sit tight on this. > >Ed > >Edwin F. Hart >Applied Physics Laboratory >11100 Johns Hopkins Road >Laurel, MD 20723-6099 >USA >+1-443-778-6926 (Baltimore Area) >+1-240-228-6926 (Washington DC Area) >+1-443-778-1093 (facsimile) >edwin.hart@jhuapl.edu > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joan_Aliprand@notes.rlg.org [mailto:Joan_Aliprand@notes.rlg.org] >Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 19:57 >To: Hart, Edwin F. >Subject: RE: Yamazaki-San > > > >Ed: > >I'm not sure what to advise you. We certainly haven't included the changes >you suggested in your response to Yamazaki-san. > >What I have done is annotated Yamazaki-san's e-mail and your response with >my opinions (highlighted in light blue (aka cyan)). (See attached file: >Yamazaki-comments-jma.doc) > >The fundamental problem is that Yamazaki-san has read something into FCD >Clause 15.2 that it doesn't say. To solve this (mis-)perceived problem, he >makes two proposals, one of which (A.1) is an incorrect version of what is >specified, and the other (A.2) which is way off base. > >I am not keen on the changes you proposed in your reply. I can't see the >difference between the current wording of Clause A.2.5 and its proposed >replacement, and I don't think it solves Yamazaki-san's concern. I don't >think the addition to 14.7 is needed, and I think that adding the proposed >text to 14.4 introduces undesirable restriction. I should have paid >attention at the time you wrote -- but (on the other hand), it might not >have been very good for you and me to be debating in front of a Japanese NB >representative. They might have thought we didn't know what we were doing >and that they (as host for the Registration Authority) would be stuck with >our mess. > >You know, I think I will put in for travel funding for SC2 in Tokyo. You >never know! > >-- Joan