Editor's note: These minutes have not been edited. Date: 22 Dec 95 15:11:37 EST From: R.PETKE@csi.compuserve.com Subject: Minutes of the URC BOF - Dallas Minutes for URC BOF, 12/07/95, Dallas Chair: Rich Petke (r.petke@csi.compuserve.com) Minutes: Billy Barron (billy@utdallas.edu), John Noerenberg (jwn2@qualcomm.com), Rich Petke (r.petke@csi.compuserve.com) BOF to WG Transition -------------------- The first item of business was to determine if there was enough interest in URCs to justify the formation of a working group. Of the 50 or so people present (blue sheet count plus others who did not sign the sheet), about 75% indicated that they had a specific interest in URCs; the remaining folks indicated that they were filling an empty time slot and/or were interested in learning more about URCs. About 30% of those present indicated that they were subscribed to the URC discussion list. URC discussion list: urc@list.gatech.edu To subscribe: subscribe urc to listproc@list.gatech.edu Archive: http://www.gatech.edu/iiir/urc The chair briefly summarized the events which lead up to this BOF. Working Group Charter (and Milestones) -------------------------------------- The current draft of the proposed charter for the working group (draft number 5) was presented and the floor was opened for discussion. (The charter had been discussed previously on the URC discussion list.) The following points were made: o SGML should not be assumed or explicitly stated in the charter as it may be too limiting. The suggestion was accepted. o The creation of a requirements document needs to be included in the working group's milestones. The suggestion was accepted. o The creation of a glossary of terms needs to be included in the working group's milestones. The suggestion was accepted. o The working group should not allow itself to become bogged down by defining semantics. A few semantics, such as for URLs, will have to be defined but the working group should steer clear of attempting to define grand, all encompassing schemes. o Searching attributes, beyond some minimal specification required for interoperability, is out of scope for this working group. o The working group will not talk about synchronization. o No discussion of protocols to be used to exchange URCs should be included in the charter. The chair determined that there were too many changes to the charter to proceed without posting a revised charter to the discussion list for review. A discussion on data formats and tags and the registry of same followed. A rough consensus was reached that: o No central/universal registry of tags was practical at this time. o A mechanism must exist to find out the definition of a tag. o URCs must be able to include existing systems of tags (like MARC). Presentation of URC Work in Progress ------------------------------------ Ron Daniel presented an overview of his current work on URCs. Keith Moore presented an overview of his current work on URCs.