RE: OASIS branding on ebXML doc

["Carol Geyer" <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>]

David, 
I appreciate the clarification, and I realize I was in error when I said a
document needed to be approved before it could use the OASIS logo.

The OASIS logo may be used on a draft document, providing:

1. The document is recognized as the expository work product of one or more
OASIS TC(s), which are identified by name on the cover page (or first slide).
TC meeting minutes should indicate acknowledgement of the draft document as its
expository working draft.

2. The status of the document ("DRAFT") and the last revision date is indicated
on the cover page (or first slide).

3. The OASIS copyright notice is included in the document.

Once a TC approves a non-spec document, the status should state: "Approved by
the OASIS <name> Technical Committee on <date>." 

Please understand that this is not a reflection on the contents of this
particular document (which, I confess, I have not read thoroughly). We just
need to be sure drafts which are OASIS-branded are in fact the work of a TC
(and not just of a subset of its members).

Thanks,
Carol


-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:10 PM
To: Carol Geyer
Cc: ebxml-jc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: OASIS branding on ebXML doc

Carol,
 
Exactly.  
 
This document has been discussed at length on TC lists - and also at TC
meetings and changes suggested and made repeatedly to it.
 
Some clarification - items need to have OASIS branding BEFORE they are formally
approved - if something has been contributed to OASIS - especially under the
new IPR - correct?  
 
Likewise - the Kavi system clearly states whether something is a draft - or a
formally approved document.
 
In this case the item was labelled as "draft for discussion" - and Kavi also
has all the revisions and changes saved also.
 
I could ask one or more TC's to formally approve this as a work product - but
seems like this is better just left as a draft for discussion.
 
Perhaps OASIS needs to consider having two logos - one for formally approved
specs' and the other for drafts?
 
Right now it does not - so we have to go with the default - otherwise the IPR
is not covered?
 
Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)




	-------- Original Message --------
	Subject: OASIS branding on ebXML doc
	From: "Carol Geyer" <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>
	Date: Tue, April 10, 2007 1:04 pm
	To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info>
	Cc: <ebxml-jc@lists.oasis-open.org>
	
	
	David,
	I'm concerned about the document at
	
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/23216/Comparing%20messaging%2
	0systems%20for%20B2B.pdf and have removed the link from ebXML XML.org
	until I
	can understand more about it.
	
	The document features the OASIS logo and the link for ebXML XML.org,
	and says
	it was "Developed by OASIS ebXML TC members".
	
	Naturally, I'm concerned with branding issues. A document should not
	use the
	OASIS logo until it has been formally approved by an OASIS TC. Is this
	being
	evaluated now by one of the TCs?
	
	Thanks,
	Carol
	
	
	_________________________________
	Carol Geyer
	Director of Communications
	OASIS
	+1.978.667.5115 x209 
	
	
	OASIS Symposium:
	"eBusiness and Open Standards: 
	Understanding the Facts, Fiction, and Future"
	15-18 April 2007 San Diego, CA USA
	http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium/