[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Thank you John, and good luck.
And as a final note, John, given that you will remain on our TC list as an observer (per your request), though not as an active Participant, I do hope you will feel free to send us any continued comments you may have on the progress of our TC Specifications from time to time. Yours, - Dan Greenwood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Greenwood" <dang@MIT.EDU> To: "John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com> Cc: "Legalxml-Econtracts TC" <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 1:15 PM Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Thank you John, and good luck. > John, the points you bring up in your post are provocative and insightful. > I'll read it again, more closely, to be sure the layered value is not lost. > But at first glance, it sounds to me as though many of the points go > directly to which requirements will be in scope and which will be out. That > will all be very useful as the TC brings our requirements process to a close > over the next few weeks. > > John - it is clear from the content and context of your note that you are > resigning. Based upon input from members of the TC, I accept it with the > understanding that sometimes certain paths will diverge, but friendships and > collaboration in other venues may continue. And I thank you for your > contributions in this venue to date. I look forward to seeing the great > works you will, no doubt, continue to create and I hope the specification > that comes from this TC will be of use to you in your efforts. > > With warm regards, > - Dan Greenwood, Chair of the OASIS/LegalXML eContracts TC > > ============================================== > | Daniel J. Greenwood, Esq. > | Lecturer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology > | Director, E-Commerce Architecture Program > | MIT School of Architecture and Planning > | 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 7-231 > | Cambridge, MA 02139 > | http://ecitizen.mit.edu > | or http://www.civics.com > | dang@mit.edu > ============================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com> > To: "Legalxml-Econtracts TC" <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:37 AM > Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Standards For Whom? > > > > To the Chair: > > For over four years I have been fighting for XML Namespaces, CSS, RDF, and > > X/HTML to be explicitly addressed by a standard that I wanted much to be a > > success in the marketplace. I have explained and argued every which way > for > > these technologies, believing them all to be essential and key to XML use > on the > > web. For four years, I have been involved in what often seemed bitter > exchanges > > about each of these issues. Nevertheless I have soldiered on through the > FUD and > > the delays and postponements, while these W3 technologies have all > emerged, > > bound together as I said they would be many years ago as the backbone of > the > > Web. I did so with the hope that fresh voices of an OASIS-based TC would > more > > easily understand how these developments in the world of Internet > standards, do > > relate to the development of a standard for a legal instrument that is but > one > > of an amalgam thrown at developers to absorb during their professional > lives. > > > > But today's vote crystallized for me a continuing sharp divergence of my > views > > from what would otherwise be a consensus, on the same basic issues, for > the > > second tiresome time. Today's vote removes all constraints imposed by > XHTML and > > its accompanying architecture on one's schema implementation, constraints > which > > should instead be heartily welcomed by a group relatively unskilled in web > > architecture. I also had to finally acknowledge that this vote is matched > by a > > persistent palpable reluctance to commit to the use of RDF for semantic > > information. And it comes after a continuing lack of consensus about even > the > > role of CSS in our (oops) technical requirements. And it comes complete > with > > calls to 'create our own XML namespace' as being somehow pertinent as an > end in > > itself, when the core issues are clearly about combining namespaces, our > > namespace, with the XHTML namespace, with the RDF namespace, with the > XForms > > namespace, and with the XEvents namespace. How to make these all play > together > > in a predictable manner during the markup of a legal instrument, now > that's the > > crying need. It is blatantly obvious to me that our most effective > contribution > > to the legal-software community would be to clarify how to use what > exists, > > rather than to add even further to the din. But instead, the future on the > > Committee appears to hold more of what HAS NOT worked -- creating yet > another > > XML dialect island that yes, can be validated on its own merits but no, is > > ignorant of multiple stubborn realities. Not very impressive to me. > > > > Now, as you surely know, my views are shaped by my software product plans, > ones > > which happen to match those derisively and snidely today called "one-trick > pony" > > applications. That unquestionably galled me, but also saddened me because > it > > points to the small effort being made to create a standard useful to the > > broadest audience possible. > > > > You see, I am creating a very relevant application for my customers. > Javascript > > formulas and forms, XHTML, RDF, RSS, and so on. This is hardly an atypical > legal > > document application, now or in the future. (And hardly a 'one-trick > pony'). So > > I have direct interest in a standard that uses XHTML. But without a > standard > > with a specific orientation towards XHTML, I'm finding little incentive to > > collaborate further. The consensus became pretty clear today to create an > > incompatible standard that is decidedly unuseful to me or, I believe, to > the > > market. > > > > To be oriented towards XHTML, an XHTML-conforming application is required. > One > > that consists of an XHTML module, an RDF ontology containing the > definitions for > > resource-type property-names, and several standardized XSL and CSS > stylesheets. > > But that's not the plan, which is unfortunate, since it disregards IMO > most > > anticipated contract transactions -- vanilla XHTML wrapped in a DSIG > envelope. > > The practical reality being overlooked by this TC is that technical people > need > > guidance on these issues, today. They are the ones creating the large > number of > > contracts destined to be managed by XML-consuming and -producing contract > > management systems. IMO, without their buy-in, and without a force-in > strategy, > > I do wonder what criteria will be used to judge the success of an XML > dialect > > for eContracts. > > > > I grant that direct XML contract authoring is an attractive solution to a > > certain set of users. However, the far larger group of users -- today -- > are > > those generating and accepting form contracts on the one hand, and those > > constructing and then spot-editing their contracts on the other, using a > > document assembly application. Form contracts of course need forms > controls. > > Which need all the DHTML tricks of the trade. That is, standard XHTML + > > Javascript. But I'm not seeing a standard emerging much useful to the > developers > > fielding numerous corporate applications that will put form contracts > before the > > general population as legal offers. For document assembly applications, I > am > > equally troubled: it would be odd if those applications were to implement > an > > eContracts dialect prior to complete XHTML 2.0 support. Very odd. > > > > Maybe your time horizons are diffierent from mine. I know that the world > is > > today awash in XHTML, and very little in any specific XML dialect such as > > envisioned here. Sure, developers are using the Dublin Core, and some are > > beginning to grapple with XBRL and even UBL. But please note carefully: > few use > > an OASIS dialect when a W3 dialect does the same job just fine. All by > itself, > > XHTML 2.0 does just fine for contract markup, without anything near the > market > > resistance that naturally comes to a new and untested dialect. That's the > > stubborn reality. > > > > Funny, until today, I had good reason to think that common sense would > > ultimately prevail. > > > > An architecture having an Authoring DTD distinct from a Publishing DTD -- > the > > latter being Moduler XHTML comformant, with a transforming XSL stylesheet > > between the two -- seemed to be our ultimate destination, based on recent > > encouraging remarks from Jason and Rolly. I do believe such an approach > would be > > both useful and achieve decent market penetration. I admit however that I > > presumed it was implicitly understood that -- with a separate Publishing > DTD > > mandated for the critical offer/acceptance contract datastream exchange -- > that > > an Authoring DTD threatened to appeal to merely a niche audience (as it > should). > > That is, an Authoring DTD is but a contract-authoring aid that likely can > be > > adequately implemented by Word macros and Web services, outputting XHTML+ > markup > > then processed by document signature, management and workflow > applications. All > > of which will surely be XHTML 2.0 aware. And RDF-aware. And Dublin > Core -aware. > > Why RDF and DC? Because that's the W3 architecture being embedded in > browsers > > and editors; because informed decision makers are risk averse given a > choice > > between an OASIS dialect and a functionally equivalent W3 dialect; and > because > > the RDF and DC are intellectually simple enough to be grasped without much > > effort. In short, you walk away from other standards, and people walk away > from > > you. > > > > And I suggest to you that many XHTML contract streams will be written by > Word. > > Why? Because it's absurdly obvious that XHTML 2.0 will be hailed as a > great > > XML-ified HTML, and the stampede will begin among both programmers and the > > magazine-educated. M$ surely does not ignore this -- in fact, significant > RDF/DB > > development is ongoing now, and you can bet that both Dublin Core and RDF > are > > going into the o/s. Now, doesn't it make sense to go (but not to follow) > where > > M$ is going? > > > > Of course a successful standard is best based on an understanding of the > actual > > needs of the belly of the market. I strongly assert that those needs do > not > > include yet-another-XML-dialect. Rather, the world clearly will be glad > that -- > > with XHTML 2.0 -- there's no need to have a separate (OASIS) XML dialect > for > > their user-facing contract applications. Sure, for RDF descriptions of a > > contract, specialized dialects will emerge, and will be used by > specialized > > applications. And perhaps the eContracts dialect will become that > specialized > > dialect -- assuming of course that the dialect conforms to the RDF which, > > unfortunately, appears a very dim possibility to me at this moment. > > > > I do feel proud of my contributions to this group. I feel responsible for > > goading us back to life when we were without a charter for too long a > time. For > > writing a 70 page requirements document complete with data models. For all > the > > strawman markup examples. For the diagrams. For the many carefully-written > memos > > doing my darndest to share my expertise, being as straight with the group > as I > > could be throughout. For the gift-wrapped Minority Report (whose future is > yours > > to dispose). For helping Leff with the Resources page. > > > > I chuckled the other day when you talked about 'socializing' the Req Doc > during > > the F2F. Fine, but here's hoping someone will notice the elephant in the > room, > > and then have the bravery to confront it. > > > > Ciao, > > John > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of > the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/lea > ve_workgroup.php. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/lea ve_workgroup.php. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]