[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [oic] deliverable "state of interoperability"
Rob, thanks. Just for clarification, I did not mean to discount information from vendors about what they are learning the interoperability issues are, especially from user feedback. I was thinking more about how vendors might be reluctant to disclose that kind of information because of competitive concerns, and because of that we should not consider that a sole source or even a preferred source. (A giant contribution of producers would be some sort of consistent implementation profiles. That would be huge.) I think we should welcome grounded information from all sources. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oic/200901/msg00034.html Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:23 To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [oic] deliverable "state of interoperability" "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/20/2009 11:42:52 AM: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oic/200901/msg00033.html [ ... ] > Vendors might have information they can share in regard to what comes in as > hot spots from adopters of their products, but we should not depend on that > as a sole source. > Well, where a vendor is also a deployer, that then becomes a valid data point, equally as valid as any other deployer. I certainly wouldn't disregard an ODF deployer's views simply because they happen to also be a vendor. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]