XML4IP Task Forces Meeting Report, 15-19 October 2012

page 4

CWS XML4IP Task Force Meeting

Canberra, Australia, October 15-19, 2012

Meeting REPORT

INTRODUCTION

1.  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.

2.  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.

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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.

7.  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.

8.  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.

9.  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.

10.  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

11.  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.

12.  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.

13.  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).

14.  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.

15.  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:

(a)  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?

(b)  If the mapping and the development of the transformation tools are to continue which task force should continue this work, and

(c)  Who will own and maintain the transformation tables once they have been developed?“

16.  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.

17.  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.

18.  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.

19.  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.

20.  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.

21.  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.

22.  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.

23.  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.

24.  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.

25.  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.