OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) TC

Dear Kenneth, Ken, and members of the UBL TC:

These are our suggestions on how to proceed with the production preparation of UBL version 2.4 for transposition by ISO/IEC JTC 1. There are a few formatting and timing issues to consider, an attached draft of the proposed Explanatory Report which serves as the official "cover letter" for the submission, and several attachments with notes on our experience with these submissions.

I apologize for the long delay in assembling this package for your attention and then the JTC 1 production staff (ITTF) in Geneva.  We recently completed a mutually satisfactory submission for the most recent updated version of Open Document Format (ISO/IEC 26300), applying the most recent set of expectations from their production staff.

Let me provide a bit of context and then list the pertinent attached documents and a series of editorial suggestions and proposed next steps.

As you know, ISO/IEC standards are subject to their "Directives" that govern their structure, formatting and various elements.  Part I is taken to apply to all submissions include our PAS submissions;  Part II generally is said to apply only to native ISO/IEC work products, and less so to external submissions such as ours, though in practice that latter rule varies significantly.   PAS submissions from third parties like us have always been assessed with some leeway given for the works originated outside of ISO/IEC;  but this changes over time, as application of the Directives changes as staff and methods turn over, and the Directives themselves are amended periodically. 

There have been some contradictory pronouncements over time, particularly on whether subsequent submissions (such as this one0, updating a previously transposed standard, will be held to the same or a different standard than original submissions of work for which no version has previously been shared with JTC 1.  Our navigation of those requirements now is usually a kind of gentle negotiation between which requirements will apply, and be waived, in any given case.  The specific requirements are described below, along with our staff view on what we believe we can submit successfully, based on recent past practice.  For the flavor of those negotiations, although not as a normative guide to the current rules, I have also attached as a PDF some of the notes and advice we provided to TCs in recent similar circumstances. 

We think our best approach is to offer what we consider a reasonably compliant package, without offering some burdensome conversions (such re-drawing ~90 diagrams), and see what the Geneva production staff has to say.  Of course, we can anticipate some possible needs or objections, based on past practice, and supply those at the outset.  Those are suggested below.  Here are the relevant requirements of which we are aware, and a suggested way forward for each of them, for your approval.

1.  File format.  ITTF strongly prefers DOCX format (normed on Microsoft tools, not OOXML), and their current production arrangements seem to rely on that.   For a variety of reasons, we sometimes prefer to submit in both ODF as well as DOCX formats, but that's not required.  As Ken Holman knows well, we have also offered NISO XML documents to potentially ease production on the Geneva end, and PDFs to show intended composition, but again, they're not required, nor treated as normative by that production staff.

As many of you know, some of their requirements, including page size and editable formats, flow from JTC 1's wish to provide useful editable artifacts to national bodies, for further potential localizations of the standard (and possible re-flowing of text) after initial final publication.  Given that production changes can occur on the Geneva side, and later, there is no assurance as to pagination;   so our attempts to assist or prompt certain composition outcomes should be viewed as more inspirational than binding on the ITTF production office.

2.  A4 paper size.  This is a relatively recently imposed requirement for PAS submissions, with which we have complied by simply adjusting page margins on our usual existing US-Letter size pages, rather than re-flowing the text, and this seems to be acceptable to ITTF.  So I recommend that we send a DOCX copy of the final specification (iso-iec-19845-draft-20241113-1320Z.docx), slightly adjusted to accommodate margins for A4 paper measurements, with the tweaks below;  and also share the NISO XML and PDF versions in your package, as illustrative, understanding that the production office will complete any pagination indexing when their work is otherwise completed.

3.   Graphics and diagrams.  The standard graphics requirements for JTC 1 works require scalable and editable diagrams, largely for the purpose of giving some flexibility in page composing and potential translation of text elements.  A short ITTF guide on graphics elements is attached: it's a separate document related to but not part of the Directives.  Again, through a process of negotiation, we have usually been able to avoid a requirement that all diagrams be fully re-rendered in a vector format. 

One of our last two submissions in 2024 and 2025 had a dozen diagrams, and the other none.   We were able to prevail on the Geneva production team, to accept our existing diagrams (mostly PNG or JPG), rather than require a complete redraw of each one, understanding that is a submission of a completed work, and also the burden involved.  I think we may have also provided simple WMF conversions in one case, though not fully vectorized.  Our suggestion here is that we once again send them in "as is", rather than conduct a lengthy conversion exercise upfront.

4.  Textual elements of the document.  We have the following few suggestions and requests regarding the contents of the text specification itself, based on past experience.

(4A)  References to the ISO/IEC Directives themselves are disfavored.  As they're only used once in this document to make an optional point, we suggest they be deleted.  In the current DOCX file they occur once, in the one-sentence second paragraph in the Foreword (logical page 7, numbered page vii), which we would delete;   and then again as Normative Reference #1, which appears on logical page 11, numbered page 1, which would also delete and renumber the remaining references.

(4B)  Lists of contributors are not permitted;  we suggest that Annex I be deleted, and the document index adjusted accordingly.

(4C)  In your versions you have inserted some front matter, through and including the Foreword, which helpfully anticipates cover matters that ISO/IEC normally will insert themselves.  I see no problem with that but, again, it will serve as inspirational rather than binding instructions to the Geneva staff.  

I have read through the specification, looking for any other issues that have in the past created concerns, either as substantive or formatting matters, with JTC 1 practices, and believe that, but for the above, the document is fully compliant and ready to be sent, and should be acceptable to Geneva's production team.

Candidly, sometimes as staff we do also supply a markup of the submitted final specification text to show our suggested changes;  but in this case, (a) they are few, and (b) given the variety of tools can apply to and perturb a DOCX file, it's probably easier and safer to simply describe the comments to you, and ask your to editors make them on your preferred tool.  However, if you wish us to quickly render and send over a markup, I'm happy to do so.

5.  Explanatory Report.  Finally, a draft Explanatory Report for your review and comment also is attached, in a second separately-captioned message.  We believe it will serve as a suitable cover letter for transmittal to JTC 1,  This document also usually is sent directly with the submission documents to all balloted national bodies.  Please take a look and provide your comments, keeping in mind the general audience of multinational voting bodies, who will receive this package when the production staff has satisfied themselves as to compliance, for a reading and translation followed by what I believe is currently a 12 week ballot.  That's one of the reasons we'd like to get this and start "running the clock", whether or not the Geneva production team may raise some other heretofore undiscovered requests or concerns.

To be clear, while we do try to anticipate any obstacles, we are very optimistic about this.  OASIS has an excellent track record over many years of having its submissions happily adopted by a broad majority of JTC 1, but we do need to get past the significant uncertainty of production.  Thanks again for your extraordinary patience and generosity of spirit with us at OASIS and also with the JTC 1 production teams.

Proposed next steps:

1.  TC to re-render the DOCX and any other alternative format to be included with the editorial content changes above, and with margins adjusted to A4 paper size.
2.  TC to review and OK or edit the draft Explanatory Report.

3.  OASIS to assemble a final as-sent package, and share with TC for confirmation.

Dear Kenneth, Ken, and members of the UBL TC:

These are our suggestions on how to proceed with the production preparation of UBL version 2.4 for transposition by ISO/IEC JTC 1. There are a few formatting and timing issues to consider, an attached draft of the proposed Explanatory Report which serves as the official "cover letter" for the submission, and several attachments with notes on our experience with these submissions.

I apologize for the long delay in assembling this package for your attention and then the JTC 1 production staff (ITTF) in Geneva.  We recently completed a mutually satisfactory submission for the most recent updated version of Open Document Format (ISO/IEC 26300), applying the most recent set of expectations from their production staff.

Let me provide a bit of context and then list the pertinent attached documents and a series of editorial suggestions and proposed next steps.

As you know, ISO/IEC standards are subject to their "Directives" that govern their structure, formatting and various elements.  Part I is taken to apply to all submissions include our PAS submissions;  Part II generally is said to apply only to native ISO/IEC work products, and less so to external submissions such as ours, though in practice that latter rule varies significantly.   PAS submissions from third parties like us have always been assessed with some leeway given for the works originated outside of ISO/IEC;  but this changes over time, as application of the Directives changes as staff and methods turn over, and the Directives themselves are amended periodically. 

There have been some contradictory pronouncements over time, particularly on whether subsequent submissions (such as this one0, updating a previously transposed standard, will be held to the same or a different standard than original submissions of work for which no version has previously been shared with JTC 1.  Our navigation of those requirements now is usually a kind of gentle negotiation between which requirements will apply, and be waived, in any given case.  The specific requirements are described below, along with our staff view on what we believe we can submit successfully, based on recent past practice.  For the flavor of those negotiations, although not as a normative guide to the current rules, I have also attached as a PDF some of the notes and advice we provided to TCs in recent similar circumstances. 

We think our best approach is to offer what we consider a reasonably compliant package, without offering some burdensome conversions (such re-drawing ~90 diagrams), and see what the Geneva production staff has to say.  Of course, we can anticipate some possible needs or objections, based on past practice, and supply those at the outset.  Those are suggested below.  Here are the relevant requirements of which we are aware, and a suggested way forward for each of them, for your approval.

1.  File format.  ITTF strongly prefers DOCX format (normed on Microsoft tools, not OOXML), and their current production arrangements seem to rely on that.   For a variety of reasons, we sometimes prefer to submit in both ODF as well as DOCX formats, but that's not required.  As Ken Holman knows well, we have also offered NISO XML documents to potentially ease production on the Geneva end, and PDFs to show intended composition, but again, they're not required, nor treated as normative by that production staff.

As many of you know, some of their requirements, including page size and editable formats, flow from JTC 1's wish to provide useful editable artifacts to national bodies, for further potential localizations of the standard (and possible re-flowing of text) after initial final publication.  Given that production changes can occur on the Geneva side, and later, there is no assurance as to pagination;   so our attempts to assist or prompt certain composition outcomes should be viewed as more inspirational than binding on the ITTF production office.

2.  A4 paper size.  This is a relatively recently imposed requirement for PAS submissions, with which we have complied by simply adjusting page margins on our usual existing US-Letter size pages, rather than re-flowing the text, and this seems to be acceptable to ITTF.  So I recommend that we send a DOCX copy of the final specification (iso-iec-19845-draft-20241113-1320Z.docx), slightly adjusted to accommodate margins for A4 paper measurements, with the tweaks below;  and also share the NISO XML and PDF versions in your package, as illustrative, understanding that the production office will complete any pagination indexing when their work is otherwise completed.

3.   Graphics and diagrams.  The standard graphics requirements for JTC 1 works require scalable and editable diagrams, largely for the purpose of giving some flexibility in page composing and potential translation of text elements.  A short ITTF guide on graphics elements is attached: it's a separate document related to but not part of the Directives.  Again, through a process of negotiation, we have usually been able to avoid a requirement that all diagrams be fully re-rendered in a vector format. 

One of our last two submissions in 2024 and 2025 had a dozen diagrams, and the other none.   We were able to prevail on the Geneva production team, to accept our existing diagrams (mostly PNG or JPG), rather than require a complete redraw of each one, understanding that is a submission of a completed work, and also the burden involved.  I think we may have also provided simple WMF conversions in one case, though not fully vectorized.  Our suggestion here is that we once again send them in "as is", rather than conduct a lengthy conversion exercise upfront.

4.  Textual elements of the document.  We have the following few suggestions and requests regarding the contents of the text specification itself, based on past experience.

(4A)  References to the ISO/IEC Directives themselves are disfavored.  As they're only used once in this document to make an optional point, we suggest they be deleted.  In the current DOCX file they occur once, in the one-sentence second paragraph in the Foreword (logical page 7, numbered page vii), which we would delete;   and then again as Normative Reference #1, which appears on logical page 11, numbered page 1, which would also delete and renumber the remaining references.

(4B)  Lists of contributors are not permitted;  we suggest that Annex I be deleted, and the document index adjusted accordingly.

(4C)  In your versions you have inserted some front matter, through and including the Foreword, which helpfully anticipates cover matters that ISO/IEC normally will insert themselves.  I see no problem with that but, again, it will serve as inspirational rather than binding instructions to the Geneva staff.  

I have read through the specification, looking for any other issues that have in the past created concerns, either as substantive or formatting matters, with JTC 1 practices, and believe that, but for the above, the document is fully compliant and ready to be sent, and should be acceptable to Geneva's production team.

Candidly, sometimes as staff we do also supply a markup of the submitted final specification text to show our suggested changes;  but in this case, (a) they are few, and (b) given the variety of tools can apply to and perturb a DOCX file, it's probably easier and safer to simply describe the comments to you, and ask your to editors make them on your preferred tool.  However, if you wish us to quickly render and send over a markup, I'm happy to do so.

5.  Explanatory Report.  Finally, a draft Explanatory Report for your review and comment also is attached, in a second separately-captioned message.  We believe it will serve as a suitable cover letter for transmittal to JTC 1,  This document also usually is sent directly with the submission documents to all balloted national bodies.  Please take a look and provide your comments, keeping in mind the general audience of multinational voting bodies, who will receive this package when the production staff has satisfied themselves as to compliance, for a reading and translation followed by what I believe is currently a 12 week ballot.  That's one of the reasons we'd like to get this and start "running the clock", whether or not the Geneva production team may raise some other heretofore undiscovered requests or concerns.

To be clear, while we do try to anticipate any obstacles, we are very optimistic about this.  OASIS has an excellent track record over many years of having its submissions happily adopted by a broad majority of JTC 1, but we do need to get past the significant uncertainty of production.  Thanks again for your extraordinary patience and generosity of spirit with us at OASIS and also with the JTC 1 production teams.

Proposed next steps:

1.  TC to re-render the DOCX and any other alternative format to be included with the editorial content changes above, and with margins adjusted to A4 paper size.
2.  TC to review and OK or edit the draft Explanatory Report.

3.  OASIS to assemble a final as-sent package, and share with TC for confirmation.