ISO/IEC JTC1/SGFS/N755

SGFS discussed the liaison statement from SC22/WG15 (see email SC22WG15.169)
last week during the Authorized Subgroup meeting in London. The liaison
statement was assigned SGFS document number N733.

In response to this liaison statement, SGFS has produced the following
liaison statement to SC22/WG15 and S-Liaison organizations (SGFS/N755).

Best regards, Willem Wakker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:  Issues Relating to National Profiles, SGFS/N733
Source:   ISO/IEC JTC1/SGFS
Status:   Liaison Statement to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 and
	  S-Liaison Organizations
Date:	  December 1992


General

The issues raised in this document are recognised as having
applicability in several areas. Similar topics are already the
subject of discussion within the regional workshops, in
particular in relation to the profiles for FTAM and ODA. The
Regional Workshop Co-ordinating Committee has a relevant
document, and SGFS requests the RWS-CC that its work be submitted
for a wider transmission.

With regard to the specific questions raised in the liaison
document:

Issue 1:  Concerning the relationship between ISP and National
Body defined set of parameters and options:

1)   The SGFS procedures clearly allow a National Body to submit
     a profile as a potential ISP, and the same process can be
     used for profiles which relate to cultural aspects. The
     SGFS would expect that the choice of options or additional
     standards would be restricted to these cultural aspects.

     A decision as to whether any particular profile would be
     input to the process for approval as an ISP would depend on
     the profile concerned. Where the cultural additions
     addressed extended beyond the interest of one particular
     country or region it would clearly be appropriate for there
     to be international agreement on its content, and therefore
     it should become an ISP.

2)   The SGFS does not envisage creating a class of profile
     called a "National Profile". There does not seem to be the
     need for emphasizing cultural issues as being any different
     from other aspects which have an impact across technology
     areas.

3)   A National Body is able to agree its own local standards in
     this area, as in any other. This applies whether or not the
     profile has been registered as an ISP.

4)   If a National Body requires to refer to non-standard
     interfaces or parameters its own rules for standardization
     would apply. However, once a profile were submitted for
     international approval the requirements of TR10000 would
     need to be observed. The text of Part 1, section 6.1, makes
     clear that:

     *	  An approved ISP shall make reference only to base
	  standards [which are approved International Standards
	  or CCITT recommendations] or other ISPs.
     *	  In exceptional [and defined] circumstances normative
	  reference may be made to ISO/IEC Technical Reports.
     *	  Informative reference may be made to applicable
	  regional or national standards.


Issue 2:  Definition of National Profile

1)   The SGFS does not intend to define the concept of national
     profiles, and does not believe that any special procedures
     for cultural aspects are required, in any part of TR10000.

2)   On the resolution of conflicts, it is a requirement of SGFS
     procedures that draft profiles should be harmonized. The
     general principle that should be observed is that conflict
     should be avoided rather than resolved, and that early
     information of the intention to develop culturally-based
     profiles should be made to the SGFS.



Issue 3:  Concerning Internationalization features in ISP and
Taxonomy

The 3 questions listed here raise some general points regarding
the treatment of cross-functional issues, on which the SGFS will
ask for input from National Bodies and S-liaisons. It is not
clear at present that categorisation, standardisation or
registration for individual cultural elements raises any special
requirement.