What to do about Standards group name = Standards category name?

[theareaorg]

In a perfect world, the machine-assigned vocabulary would already include all known SDOs. Unfortunately, the only SDO in the current machine-assigned vocabulary is "ISO."

I propose to create a group for each known SDO. With the exception of ISO, the groups will be empty.

[wzbernstein]

Sure, I think it makes sense to add a list of SDOs into the term-bucketing for future proofing.

[theareaorg]

So do we have an agreement that we will add to the list of groups (mid-level terms) the following list of SDOs:
[feel free to add any other SDOs that I may have omitted]
Khronos Group
MIPI Alliance
ISO/IEC JTC1
ISO/IEC
BSI
Underwriters Lab
IEEE
ETSI
3GPP
OGC
W3C

What about:
SAE??
ASTM??

[theareaorg]

Bill is going to find and provide in this issue the full list of SDOs that NIST recognizes.

[wzbernstein]

I am not allowed (not sure why???) the list of NIST-approved SDOs... Here are the ones we should add, in my opinion:

• OPC
• OMG
• ISA
• ASME
• ASTM
• MTConnect
• OAGi
• DMSC
• IPC

[wzbernstein]

SAE is good too

[theareaorg]

We are going to combine Bill's list and mine and alphabetized:
OPC
OMG
ISA
ASME
ASTM
MTConnect
OAGi
DMSC
IPC
Khronos Group
MIPI Alliance
ISO/IEC JTC1
ISO/IEC
BSI
Underwriters Lab
IEEE
ETSI
3GPP
OGC
W3C
SAE
ASTM
We will not pre-populate the groups anywhere else.

[theareaorg]

Today we spoke about this again. I volunteered to assign the 15 machine-assigned terms into groups (mid-level terms).

I propose five groups:

• Reviews (there was only one term but it doesn't fit into the other groups)
• Specifiations (this is the name I'm least comfortable with, Bill do you have any suggestions?)
• Standards Benefits
• Standards Development Organizations
• Web and Internet Standards

I've attributed the 15 low-level terms to these in the New Low-Level Organization (and sent as .xls to Bill)