ࡱ > 0 bjbjWW 8 5 5 \ \ i i i i i j j j 8 Jj Vk d j l l l l l o J 4p $ Xp $ 8 7 i ;u o " o ;u ;u 7 i i l l L W{ W{ W{ ;u i l i l W{ ;u W{ W{ T / l SQ Sv 8 b 0 ' 5w p / 6 i e lp V q W{ r zs lp lp lp 7 7 z lp lp lp ;u ;u ;u ;u lp lp lp lp lp lp lp lp lp \ h : CWS XML4IP Task Force Meeting Canberra, Australia, October 15-19, 2012 Meeting REPORT INTRODUCTION An informal meeting of the XML4IP Task Force took place in Canberra from 15 to 19 October 2012. The following nine offices/organizations were represented at the meeting: AU, CA, EM, GB, KR, NZ, RU, US and IB. Meeting agenda was adopted as proposed by the International Bureau (IB). The adopted agenda and participants list are reproduced as Annexes to this report. The meeting was opened by Mr. David Johnson, General Manager of the Business and Information Management Solutions (BIMS) Group, who welcomed the participants on behalf of the IP Australia (IPA). Mr. Yun, as Task Force Leader, chaired the meeting. The Participants would like to extend most sincere thanks to IPA for the excellent hospitality and wonderful facilities they made available for us during our Task Force meeting. The pleasant atmosphere contributed to our work and aided us in continuing our progress in discussions about the XML standard for IP. DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND AgreementS Agenda Item 3: Progress report on the ST.96 Development by the Task Force Leader The Task Force Leader delivered a progress report on the development of ST.96 since the last XML4IP Task Force meeting. He highlighted the test results of Annex V and Annex VI of ST.96. He also reported the recent development at WIPO for version control of XML Schema, Subversion (SVN). SVN is setup in WIPO environment (https://www3.wipo.int/svn/ST96) and a test of Subversion has just been completed with the USPTO. The Task Force Leader informed all delegations that any TF members can request to have access permission to WIPO SVN. It is recommended that IPOs have only one read/write permission account, and multiple read permissions accounts if needed. Subversion can be accessed with the Wiki username and password. Agenda Item 4: IPOs' Activities regarding WIPO XML Standards and other matters reported by Delegations Eight Offices (AU, EM, GB, KR, NZ, RU, US, IB/PCT) made presentations on their practices regarding WIPO Standards and other ICT initiatives. US, RU and KR reported their plan to implement ST.96 in the 2012 to 2015 period. AU and GB reported that they are exploring ST.96 for use in their data systems. CA also stated that it is investigating ST.96 for its new data system. Agenda Item 5: Preparation of final draft for ST.96 Annex V Discussion of draft version of Annex V (V0-7,) and Second Round Test comments provided on the Wiki, including the ROSPATENT proposal to include national extensions in the ST.96 schema. OHIM suggested that this could be done where more than one or two offices require use of particular elements. USPTO suggested this approach would make the standard larger/more cumbersome, and that updates may not be made quickly enough to meet national requirements. IB/Madrid suggested that public visibility of IPOs schemas may allow other offices to reuse what already exists in office-specific schemas and may help in determining what should be in the St.96 schema. Several IPOs suggested that good documentation practices should be used to explain rules for specific countries. The TF Leader indicated that ST.96 tries to provide as detailed description as possible for each component. The Participants agreed to exclude office-specific components from the schema and that only ST.96 conforming schema is to be used for data exchange. If IPOs need specific elements they are to propose their addition to the Schema to the Task Force. Discussion of problems raised by ROSPATENT on the Wiki on 25 September 2012. USPTO has identified changes that need to be made. The Task Force Leader requested revision to be made during the Task Force meeting and posted on the Wiki. Demonstration of the Schematron tool for ST.96 by USPTO, implementing 45 of 95 DRCs. The tool gives errors, warnings and messages. USPTO has shared the Schematron on the Wiki. The Participants reviewed Annex V, version 0.7, paragraph-by-paragraph, revised it based on discussions and agreements from the previous sessions. The Participants agreed on the version 0.8 of Annex V and inviting Task Force members to comment on it. The IB will create a Wiki page for the discussion. Agenda Item 6: Preparation of final draft for ST.96 Annex VI The Participants discussed the current version of Annex VI (V0-5) and 1st review comments provided on the Wiki. The Task Force Leader reiterated the importance of Annex VI for IPOs exchanging data with partner offices, but also for external data consumers, e.g. database providers. The Annex will cover standard transformation only, and IPOs will need additional transformations where they have extended a Schema. The Participants discussed who will be the keeper/owner of the XSLTs, as well as version control. The Participants agreed that mapping cannot be provided for every single combination of Schema versions. IB/Madrid suggested that they will have to develop/maintain transformations, as they do for MECA and ST.66. Likely to be the same for PCT (ST.36 and ST.96), and eventually for Industrial Design data as well. IB/Madrid added that development will likely be driven by use, i.e. not when standard is first adopted, but when offices start using it. The Participants agreed that mapping and transformation should only be done between latest versions of ST.96 and ST.36/ST.66./ST.86. The Task Force Leader raised a question on whether requirements for full transformation should be investigated. IPA made a suggestion that it would be good to have at least a full mapping table if not the complete transformation script. The Task Force Leader informed the Participants that this approach had been considered in the past. It was found difficult to map elements in isolation, so the Task Force decided to focus on the Schema and produced both the transformation scripts and the mapping tables at the same time (transformation script based on the Schema, then produced the mapping table). USPTO indicated they would be able to provide the transformations of the sample components at this stage. They further indicated it may be more appropriate to do the remainder of transformations at data exchange points between office specific implementations of standards, e.g. ST.36 and ST.96. The current transformations are from/to ST.36 and ST.96, not USPTO local implementation. The Task Force Leader suggested initially including sample components in the first version of Annex VI without full transformations. Other delegates agreed with this approach, offering transformations currently available as a start, and developing the remaining transformations on an ongoing basis. Further comments were added on not committing to producing transformations without knowing the availability of resources. The Participants agreed that a message should be put to CWS to go ahead with transformations that are currently available. The Participants agreed on a message to be provided along the following lines: The XML4IP Task Force members would like to highlight the importance of these mapping and transformation tools and the need to complete the mapping for all components contained within the standards. The Participants agree that with the coexistence of the standards the completion of this work, and continued maintenance of it, is integral to the success of the ongoing implementation of the St.96 standard within IPOs.This work will however, require time and resources on an ongoing basis which the Task Force does not have and has not been scoped to do at this time. Therefore the task force is seeking guidance from the CWS on the following: Their views on the importance of the continued mapping and development of tools for the bi-directional transformation of components within ST.36, ST.66 and ST.86 to ST.96, and whether this work should continue? If the mapping and the development of the transformation tools are to continue which task force should continue this work, and Who will own and maintain the transformation tables once they have been developed? OHIM provided a demonstration of ST.66/ST.86 to ST.96 and ST.96 to ST.66/ST.86 transformations using real Trademark/Design data and reported problems. Multiple instances were tested as not every case had all the required data. Some information was identified as missing after the transformation, e.g. from ST.66 to ST.96, even though the corresponding elements exist. Probable cause: Mapping not done correctly. ROSPATENT ST.36 to ST.96 conversion test report: USPTO has reproduced most of the errors reported. Most of the corrections needed to the XSLT have been made/will be made and USPTO will provide an updated XSLT (Test Cases 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14). Some problems may require Schema changes, rather than the transformation script, such as Test Case 5. The Task Force Leader identified the need to think about compatibility, but also improvement of the standards. A decision needs to be made on whether the change should be to ST.36 or ST.96. If the decision is made that the element is required (currently optional), then an update to ST.36 is needed, rather than making it optional in ST.96. Similar comments apply to Test Case 6. ROSPATENT ST.96 to ST.36 conversion test report: Test Case (not numbered): Validation error 1 element tables, attribute id USPTO indicated this has been fixed. Validation error 2 attribute num question about the meaning/definition of num in ST.36 versus ST.96 (i.e. table number or number/quantity of tables). These elements should not be mapped to each other if they have a different meaning. Required further discussion. Test Case 5 script error, USPTO agreed to fix. ROSPATENT ST.66 to ST.96 conversion test report. Language code error found to be related to the previous version of the schema. In ST.96 V1-0 D3 the enumeration list for language code has been fixed (now lower case), but the Transformation script has not been updated. ROSPATENT ST.96 to ST.66 conversion test report: Test Case 1: TransactionCode defined as mandatory in ST.66 but not found in input data. Test Case 2: FreeFormatAddress not allowed simultaneously with FormattedAddress. Both were found to be Transformation script problems rather than Schema issues. IPOs discussed which version of ST.96 Schema should be used by Annex VI. IB/PCT suggested using the latest version, since no IPO is currently using ST.96 in production and there would be no benefit in transforming to something that is known to have problems (i.e. earlier version of the Schema). The Task Force Leader stressed the deadline for providing materials by middle of November, and questioned whether new version of the Schema will be ready by then and who will provide Annexes V and VI. With the next session of CWS provisionally scheduled for March, documents will need to be provided at least two months in advance, including for translation purposes into 6 languages. XML4IP TF is authorized to revise ST.96 schema, but Annex V and VI need approval by the CWS before they can be revised by the Task Force. Main text of the Annexes in particular would be needed earlier, but the appendixes could have more time as they would not require translation. The Participants agreed to base Annexes V and VI on the new version of the ST.96 Schema. The objective of the implementation is to make sure that the standard works, getting a functional version even if development of some of the Annexes is delayed. However, the Task Force Leader raised concerns about the timeframes for completing the Annexes. He indicated that CWS materials need to be published at least a month in advance, meaning the Appendixes to the Annexes would have to be submitted by the end of January. If next version of Schema is agreed on by the Task Force members by the end of December that would leave three weeks to prepare the Appendixes, but time would also be needed for testing. Further discussion needed to reach an agreement on which Schema version Annexes V and VI should be based on. Annex VI was revised by the Participants, paragraph-by-paragraph. The Participants agreed to proposed changes to Annex VI, as indicated in the marked up document, including the following: The Participants discussed whether to keep the section on country codes and language codes (4.3). Some Participants suggested this was already covered in a more general way by other sections, such as 4.4 and 4.7. Some clarifications made to the paragraph with agreement to revisit if needed when practical experience available. Section 4.4 After some discussion, The Participants agreed to leave the section as is (other than minor clarifications and grammatical corrections) and revisit if needed when practical experience available. Further changes to paragraphs and transformation rules, including clarifications and grammatical corrections, as indicated in the marked up document. The Participants discussed the ROSPATENT request for patent bibliographic data to be included in ST.96 Annex VI. The TF Leader indicated that the Participants need to decide now if this will be included in Annex VI, and that contribution of Task Force members is crucial. The Task Force Leader asked the Participants to state whether they can take part in the testing of transformations between ST.36 and ST.96 for patent bibliographic data. IPA and KIPO indicated it would be difficult for them to test as neither IPO maps data to ST.36. IPONZ also indicated they would not be able to test, and UKIPO suggested they would more likely to be able to do testing on the Trademark side. CIPO indicated they would be able to test if USPTO provided the XSLT and test data, and approval has been given by CIPO management to proceed. ROSPATENT and USPTO indicated they would be able to test. Rospatent added they would not be able to test transformations as they do not currently have bibliographic data in ST.36 format (SDOBI only), but could verify the mapping between ST.9 and ST.96. The Task Force Leader suggested setting a deadline for completing the testing. Final comments on the preparation of Annexes V and VI: If the new version ST.96 schema agreed by the beginning of December 2012, TF Members will be invited to test the revised Annexes. Otherwise, the TF will submit the Annexes based on ST.96 schema v1.0 for adoption by the CWS and TF will inform CWS that further revision needs to be done. The Participants agreed on the version 0.6 of Annex VI and to invite the Task Force members to comment on it. The IB will create a Wiki page for the discussion. Agenda Item 7: Revision of ST.96, XML Schemas and other Annexes Revision of ST.96 XML Schema V1-0-D3 Common The Participants discussed the USPTOs proposals for structural changes to the Schema. The Participants agreed with the proposal of removing the logical grouping concept and making all components into separate XSD files. This proposal will need to be approved by all Task Force Members through the Wiki. The remaining proposals were discussed in detail, with pros and cons of different options for merging folders and changing versioning methodology. The Participants agreed that the Document category/directory should be kept, and that the Basic and Aggregate folders should be merged, but a general agreement on structure and versioning could not be reached. The Task Force Leader proposed to continue discussion on the USPTO proposals for structural changes to the Schema through the Wiki. OHIM volunteered to prepare some ideas and share through the Wiki. Suggested that around 1 month needed to prepare because of time constraints, and to have time to discuss with developers first, in particular since the Schema will be used by developers mainly. The Task Force Leader generally agreed with this more practical approach proposal by OHIM. However, because of time limits for next version of the Schema to be prepared by the end of November, he requested OHIM to prepare and propose an initial idea by the beginning of November. The Task Force Leader further asked for USPTO and OHIM to organize a teleconference session to discuss the proposal. Other IPOs are also welcome to join the discussion. Once USPTO and OHIM agree on a date and time, invites will be sent to other TF members. Critical that the restructure be completed by the end of November. The Task Force Leader set the following schedule for the proposal for structural changes: Deadline for initial idea proposal from OHIM Sunday 11 November, agreed by OHIM. Teleconference set up provisionally for 3pm Geneva time on Tuesday 13 November. OHIM suggested using Subversion for shared access to national extension components and making use of its version control functionality. This approach could eliminate the need to update the system by copying all ST.96 components. It would allow connecting to the source of the component and extending it in the same subversion. Development components could connect directly to official ST.96 version. Each of the IPOs could have their own subdirectory. As an additional benefit, Subversion could also be used for distributed hosting, e.g. for load sharing and backup. IB/Madrid commented that the preferred option would be to define the schema structure in a way that is independent of storage implementation. The Participants also discussed the JPO comments on the Wiki regarding issues with the com:ExtendedISOLanguageCodeType component. The enumeration values for ISO language codes have already been fixed, but not the extended ISO language codes, as identified by JPO. Changes will be reflected in the next version of the Schema. The Participants discussed the placement of XML schemas for ISO codes and ST.3 code, which are in the Common folder. In order to avoid the frequent versioning, it was agreed to move them into ExternalStandard folder and directly use the Extended components, e.g., ExtendedWIPOST3Code without version information in their file name. Revision of ST.96 XML Schema V1-0-D3 Design Not discussed. Revision of ST.96 XML Schema V1-0-D3 Patent The Participants discussed the ROSPATENT draft Schema proposal for notifications based on WIPO ST. 17. This proposal is based on ROSPATENTs national extensions of the ST.36 DTD to include Russian notifications. This proposal extends the ST.96 Schema PatentRecord element. All participating IPOs agreed on the benefits of ROSPATENTs proposal but noted that the scope of notifications needs to be investigated further and agreed on. Suggestions were made for ROSPATENT to list all information needed before developing schemas, similar to the approach taken by USPTO for Trademarks, providing a description for each component. USPTO will also provide information on work they are doing in this area to ROSPATENT. Commonalities to be identified between IPOs to determine the scope and what can be reused. The Participants also discussed the terminology used, with OHIM & USPTO preferring to use publication rather than notification. Task Force members are also to check whether their IPO is currently using ST.17 and reported on the Wiki IssueID-478. The following Participants reported they do not use ST.17: AU, US, GB, EM. The Task Force Leader set the following schedule: Initial proposal by the end of this week to be posted by ROSPATENT on the Wiki. The Task Force Leader to create a Wiki page for discussions. First round of discussions: Comments by Task Force members to be posted on the Wiki by 3 November. Second draft: USPTO and ROSPATENT to develop and post for comment on the Wiki by 9 November Second round of discussions: Comments by Task Force members to be posted on the Wiki by 23 November Final Schema proposal: USPTO and ROSPATENT to develop a final version of the Schema proposal reflecting comments by Task Force members (date to be decided) The Participants discussed the ROSPATENT proposal for com:OrganizationStandardName and com:OrganizationOtherName to be changed to PhraseType. The PhraseType complex type would allow these elements to support rich text such as subscript and superscript (UTF-8 does not cover all characters required by ROSPATENT). OHIM proposed separating content and presentation, by importing a reduced version of HTML5 presentation into PhraseType. The Participants at the meeting agree that change is needed to define above two elements as PhraseType. Further investigation is needed to determine whether to use PhraseType as is or import HTML, as well as whether PhraseType should be kept in Patent or moved to Common. OHIM submitted a proposal to remove all presentation components, including PhraseType, and presented 3 options. The Participants agreed to continue discussion on this matter through the Wiki (IssueID-479). The Participants agreed that the Presentation component issue should be discussed within Common rather than Patent because of the impact on Trademark and Design. The Participants also discussed IssueID-257, dealing with the ROSPATENT proposal for an additional attribute for DesignerType. This proposal is not limited to designs, but also suggested for patents including utility models. The proposal is for a new attribute to indicate whether personal details of an inventor/designer details should be kept confidential (name, address, etc.). Two options for implementation discussed: (1) new attribute (2) new element. The Participants agreed that using an element is the preferred option. Some Participants suggested that this new element would belong in com:Contact. It was agreed to add a ConfidentialIndicator element. UKIPO to propose a description. The Participants discussed PatentRepublication and agreed to add com:Version as optional. The Participants discussed PlantName and agreed on as proposed in ST.96 Schema V1-0-D3. Revision of ST.96 XML Schema V1-0-D3 Trademark Detailed discussion of the USPTO proposal for the revision of ST.96 XML Schema for the Trademark component to meet national requirements. USPTO found that many national requirements data elements were missing in ST.66 and the ST.96 Trademark component, which cater mainly for international data requirements. It is likely that many of the national extensions developed by USPTO will be common to national requirements of other IPOs. The Participants discussed the NationalTrademarkInformation component, specifically the use of term national in the component name. Suggested that for some IPOs (e.g. OHIM, Benelux) other terms may be more appropriate (e.g. domestic or regional). The Task Force Leader reminded the Participants that this has been discussed in previous meetings and the term national was agreed on. USPTO suggested that there should be a Design Rule for national vs. regional IPOs. The Task Force Leader asked the USPTO to propose a Design Rule on the Wiki. OHIM commented that, in general, components are supposed to be used for national-wide data and international/regional prefix are added in the name of components which are defined for international or regional business only. OHIM raised the issue of other languages/scripts. USPTO indicated they were concerned with presenting USPTO data and therefore not concerned about this issue. The TF Leader suggested that a language attribute or element may be needed, which requires further discussion. The Participants discussed the NationalStatus component. OHIM suggested using a (US) enumerated list for domestic statuses combined (union) with existing ST.96 statuses. USPTO indicated that existing statuses are all international. Furthermore, if enumerated lists were used each pair of IPOs exchanging data would need to have a correspondence table for mapping statuses. OHIM further proposed having two levels of statuses, a minor status for internal statuses, and a major status that is exposed externally. USPTO suggested that OHIM make a proposal on the Wiki. Discussion on how to handle Series Marks or Marks in Series. OHIM questioned whether WordMarkBag may be an option that could be used for these. Participating IPOs with Series Marks (UKIPO, IPA, IPONZ) to post comments on the Wiki describing their requirements for these marks. UKIPO will propose initial schema/description. OHIM suggested that the TF Leader set up a new Wiki page for this work. Furthermore, the Participants discussed whether a Series Mark should be added to the enumerated list for MarkCategoryType (i.e. a different type of Trademark). Alternative suggestions were made to create a separate component, i.e. MarkSeries, which could contain a number of Marks of potentially different categories. Further investigation is needed to determine the rules for Series Marks in different IPOs. The implementation will depend on the requirements of IPOs and the discussion will continue on the Wiki. The Participants discussed the CollectiveMarkBag proposal by ROSPATENT. The description was not clear enough for the Participants to understand sufficiently what falls in this category and whether these exist for other IPOs (potentially under a different name). ROSPATENT requested to provide further information on the Wiki. Discussion of potential overlap of USPTO MaintenanceFiling component and the existing MarkRecordType. Insufficient description in ST.66 and ST.96 Trademark component may have led to some duplication. USPTO will discuss with OHIM to determine the overlap of these components. KIPO queried handling of 3D Trademark (and Design) applications. USPTO suggested this could fit in the MultimediaBag and KIPO could propose acceptable file types to be added to an enumerated list. The Task Force Leader reminded the Participants of the ongoing work of the Trademark Standards Task Force in this area. USPTO informed the Participants of having to accept submissions from applicants in whatever format they are sent. The Participants discussed the preferred location of the description of the components. Various views were presented on whether the description should be in the Schema itself or outside the Schema. The Task Force Leader indicated that this issue had also been debated in the past and the agreement was reached to add the description to the Schema. The Participants agree to keep the description inside the Schema. OHIM proposed removing the description from the production Schema. Comments from the Participants on all issues requested by 4 November 2012, earlier if possible. Agenda Item 8: Reorganization of Task Forces dealing with XML-based Standards The Participants discussed options for the reorganization of XML Task Forces, including Option 4 as proposed by the IB. USPTO had some concerns about Option 4, in particular the authority of all four proposed Task Forces to make changes of ST.96 and report directly to the CWS. They considered that authority for changes at 4 different levels is a risk and could create a lack of consistency. Proposed to change structure so that the proposed IPXML Task Force has all authority rather than splitting across 4 Task Forces (i.e. as proposed in Option 1). The Task Force Leader indicated this approach cannot work in the current CWS structure (i.e. a Task Force cannot be in charge of another Task Force). The Task Force Leader further explained that even though the authority was spread to all proposed Task Forces in Option 4, in practice single meetings (physically) of all Task Forces would be held, but the time would be divided between the different Task Forces. Meetings would continue to be informal, with formal decisions made through the Wiki. Furthermore, to ensure consistency, the proposal also suggests that all members of individual Patent, Trade Mark and Design XML Task Forces would also automatically be members of the IPXML Task Force. The reorganization of the XML-based WIPO Standards was initially raised by the International Bureau and was designed to address the following possible future issues: Some offices believe that problems may arise concerning compatibility between the standards; Concerns exist about the coexistence of the various XML for IP standards; and There are concerns about the scheduling of the task force meetings concerning the various standards. It was initially thought that ST.96 would be the primary standard with the eventual retirement of the ST.36/ST.66/ST.86 standards. However, given the fact that several offices have made a significant investment in developing their systems around the ST.36/ST.66/ST.86 Standards, it appears to be unlikely that the ST.36/ST.66/ST.86 Standards will retire anytime soon. The co-existence of these standards brings challenges concerning the management of these standards as they are moving targets. Currently, questions remain as to whether the ST.36/ST.66/ST.86 standards will or should continue to evolve in line with ST.96. Recently there have not been many proposed changes to the ST.36/ST.66/ST.86 standards and so it appears it may be better to freeze the old standards and not have four Standards evolving together. Since the scope of ST.96 encompasses the scope of the ST.36/ST.66/ST.86 standards, it appears that almost all changes to ST.36/ST.66/ST.86 will impact ST.96; however, only some changes to ST.96 will impact the ST.36/ST.66/ST.86 Standards. The Participants agreed that there is no reason to reorganize the task forces at this time. Based on the following reasons, the XML4IP Task Force members believe that the status quo is sufficient and advantageous in moving forward with ST.96: The above problems dont currently exist and may or may not arise in the future. The TF members believe it would be better to wait until problems manifest themselves and address them at that time when we better understand the scope of the problem(s); Since there have not been many recent changes to the ST.36/ST.66/ST.86 sStandards, it may be reasonable to consider freezing the old standards and thus minimizing potential compatibility issues, and negating the need for the proposed reorganization; and There is no easy way to resolve the issues involving schedules. At times some members need to attend ST.96 meetings that dont pertain to their IP area. On the other hand, other IPOs only send one representative to the task force meetings and must attend all sessions. Agenda Item 9: Revision of ST.36, ST.66 and ST.86 Revision of ST.36 Task Force Leader presented the background of discussions in this matter and an initial draft proposed by the International Bureau. He also introduced WIPOSTAD which will be a new platform for the publication of WIPO Standards. It was noted that the draft is available in WIPOSTAD. It was agreed to continue revising the draft via WIPOSTAD for testing, and to report the test results. The Participants discussed the proposal to modify naming rules of ST.36 to make them compatible with ST.96. An agreement could not be reached by the Participants since Task Force Member IPOs using ST.36 and against this proposal are not attending the meeting. For the same reason, progress could not be made on the proposal to change the ST.36 MathML reference to 3.0 only. Revision of ST.66/ST.86 The discussion focused on ST.66, with agreed changes to also be applied to ST.86. Participants discussed an initial draft proposed by the IB. Suggestion from a number of Participants to replace references in ST.66 to ST.96 with text copied directly from the referenced ST.96 parts. The Task Force leader agreed to make these changes. The ST.66 TF will make a proposal for change in time for the next CWS session. Other matters Several delegates provided comments on importance of face-to-face Task Force meetings. The view provided by UKIPO is that face-to-face meetings in relation to WIPO standards offer an important opportunity for Task Force members to discuss various issues and come to a consensus more quickly. However, even more critically, they allow the Task Force to gel as a group which makes the use of the various technical means of communication, such as the Wiki, more effective. UKIPO also stated that knowing the background of an Office's issues from first handexperience can assist in the understanding of issues raised within the Task Force. Additionally, the professional networks created at these meetings allow individual offices to work in a collaborative fashion to make use of various standards. CIPO expressed similar sentiments to UKIPO. They believe their Office has benefitted greatly from the face to face interactions with Task Force colleagues from other IPOs. These discussions not only allow the standards process to proceed swiftly and more efficiently, but also result in the sharing of other ideas and experiences amongst the Participants. As CIPO is in the process of mapping out its strategic systems direction, they have gained valuable information with regards to the IT practices that have been used by their peers in other IP Offices. This insight is not limited to XML, but also other technologies implemented by these offices. The Participants would like to have the next XML4IP Task Force meeting take place in the first half of 2013 in order to share the IPOs experience of the implementation of ST.96. Action Items #Action ItemAssigned ToDue Date (yyyy-mm-dd)1Feasibility study of using HTML to replace presentation components, e.g., PhraseTypeUS and EM:- US to send EM the Schemas and Instances that contain PhraseType (or
) and MathML- EM to prepare XML schema to replace PhraseType2012-10-182Review EPO's posted comments on Annex VI TransformationAll2012-11-043Prepare proposal for Folder Restructure and post on the WikiUS, EM2012-11-114Propose DRCs to handle the National/Regional Trademark elementsUS2012-10-185Provide Comments on D3 Trademark ProposalsAll, especially NZ and EM2012-11-046Post request for PseudoMarkText to include a LanguageCode to handle sharing of information in other languages to the Wiki under D3 TrademarkEM, US2012-11-047Provide a draft proposal for MarkSeries and post on the wiki under Issue 477GB2012-11-098Check to see whether their IPO is using ST.17 Recommendation for the Coding of Headings of Announcements made in Official Gazettes.All, except RU2012-11-049Maintenance vs. MarkRecordTypeUS, EM2012-11-0410Provide input on the description and sample data for Collective Mark.RU, 2012-11-0411Outstanding Question: should the schemas version when only the description changes.All2012-10-1912Need to decide: whether to include BibData in Annex VI Transformations. Task Force Members willing and able to test: PCT, UK (possibly), CA, RU, US.All2012-10-1913Initial Draft of Notification schemaRU2012-10-24141st Round discussion for Notification schemaAllPCT: Post the DTDs for Notifications on the wiki2012-11-0315Updated Draft for NotificationRU, US2012-11-09162nd Round Discussion for NotificationAll2012-11-2317Final Draft schema for NotificationRU, US2012-11-3018Complete discussion on Schema V1-0-D3All2012-11-0419Prepare Schema V1-0-D4US and IB2012-11-1120Prepare a final draft Annex VAll2012-11-1721Prepare a final draft Annex VI (main part)All2012-11-1722Prepare a final draft Appendixes of Annex VIAll2013-01-2723Prepare a final draft for the reorganization of XML-based Task ForcesAll2012-11-18 [Annex I follows] ANNEX I: ADOPTED AGENDA Welcome Remarks by IPA Adoption of the agenda Progress report on the ST.96 Development by the Task Force Leader IPOs' Activities regarding WIPO XML Standards and other matters reported by Delegations Preparation of final draft for ST.96 Annex V Preparation of final draft for ST.96 Annex VI Revision of ST.96, XML Schemas and other Annexes Revision of ST.96 XML Schema V1-0-D3 Common Revision of ST.96 XML Schema V1-0-D3 Design Revision of ST.96 XML Schema V1-0-D3 Patent Revision of ST.96 XML Schema V1-0-D3 Trademark Reorganization of Task Forces dealing with XML-based Standards Revision of ST.36, ST.66 and ST.86 Revision of ST.36 Revision of ST.66 Revision of ST.86 [Annex II follows] ANNEX II: PARTICIPANTS LIST NAMEOFFICE / ORGANIZATIONDerek SPEROCIPOJeff LIIPAMladen MITICIPARob WILLSIPASamantha HOYIPAKylie EBRINGERIPAPeter GLOVERIPASimon FERGUSONIPONZWoochangJEONKIPIDaegyeong YANGKIPOAlexandre TRANOHIMAlexander DYUZHEVROSPATENTJulie DALTREYUKIPOKathryn TINDLE USPTOSteve BECKMANNUSPTOAllal ALOUI WIPORoger HOLBERTONWIPOYoung-Woo YUNWIPO [End of document] [Footnote continued from previous page] [Footnote continued on next page] [Endnote continued from previous page] [Endnote continued on next page] XML4IP Task Forces Meeting Report, 15-19 October 2012 page PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 4 ! " * , 5 7 > ? J K S Y Z [ \ i + - < = Z Ⱥ⤠⌈}}y h" h-O hP] h-O hX h } hbn h Cq hlK h} h hP] h} h? hp7 hp7 h?E> h hE h hp7 h h hD h h hk h6/ h6 hEFp h h,e* j h qi UmH nH u/ " K [ \ i 7 b B $a$gdcI $ 7 a$gdcI $a$gdcI $a$gdcI $a$gdcI " $a$gdcI 6 $ a$gdcI gd8L 5 $a$gdcI &