Id like to second Genes comments. But also some observations I also think that in my (considerable) time on several data committees there are now common issues that seem to lie uneasily with any one committee, but affect them all. .. and indeed others as well. One example that now fits in well and is working as one might have hoped it would The visual summary aspects in poster session was one i supported very strongly from the start, and seems to have evolved to become a lingua franca for data issues to be made apparent (in addition to the exciting poster sessions at now have people actually asking to be one rather than a presentation session) One example now needing action by TRB The next issue that is crystallising out is the metadata issue, which touches and affects a wide range of committees that handle transport information, and which needs a multicommittee framework(including all data committees-plus library and information systems as a minimum) for a period, probably no longer than 3 years, as the evolution of formal metadata needs to be handled in a coherent manner now that the process has at last begun to take on a real life (ADUS/ITS and TransXML for example) I have felt for 2 years now that a TRB Taskforce is really the best way of handling this, as the next 3 years will be critical in the formulation, framing, integration and takeup of this powerful means of raising data quality and communication. This is an appropriate time for the full committee to debate and make its mind up on this, as several of us who foresaw this emergent key issue are rotating off - and it seems singularly inappropriate for a metadata subcommittee to be attached to just Spatial data or urban data or Freight data.. or indeed just to Information Systems or library! All these parties and more have enthusiastically participated on the platform at our well-attended (even on thursday mornings...) metadata sessions since we set up the subcommittee. This area is unusual in that the same crystallisation of needs and specifications are also occurring in Europe tight now, so International Activities Committee (or at least some European participation via AET[association for european transport] with links to European Union German Swiss and Uk initiatives in particular would be important- this is a global issue form the start, not solely a North american one... and -like Survey Methods (who also have an already active and vital role)- these developments are occurring with a real cross exchange value. This would seem to indicate to me that a TRB Task Force is essential, or the emergent standards, processes and interworking that can so readily be achieved by such a mean may not realise the cost cutting (and expansions in capability) that are there to be secured by a coordinated short term approach this is indeed the specification of a Task force in TRB terms This is the second time/year I have made these points, but now the time has run out and as I have no further connection with urban data and Information systems committee after April2005. (albeit now an Emeritus Member of Freight data Committee - one must question if that is the place for such a broad scale cross TRB data activity!] If a mechanism can be found to maintain momentum within TRB, I can at least offer to work to seek to enable and ensure informed European coordination as I am now on the Council of the Association for European Transport (the organisation in europe that most closely corresponds to the TRB: there is no precise equivalent) marcus Wigan ' At 8:36 AM -0500 6/12/04, Gene Bandy wrote: