[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [FRIENDLY REMINDER] Re: [regrep-cc-review] Conformance to CCTS
Team, Just a friendly reminder that I will be sending the e-mail I reference below to Kathryn tomorrow AM (US Eastern time). For those who have not yet responded and wish to, please do so asap. Thanks, Joe Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > Team, > > I am planning to draft an e-mail to Kathryn very shortly regarding the > legal aspects of our level of conformance to the CCTS spec. As we have > seen, there are various requirements in the current CCTS spec that we > cannot conform with because such conformance does not make sense in > light of our registry architecture. > > Having been informed of the feedback to the UN/CEFACT CCTS Team from at > least one other group, it appears to me that some additional updates may > take place to the current CCTS spec before it reaches final approval. If > so, this would delay our implementation of what I consider to be a > long-needed and critical feature of our architecture. We may not want to > delay this feature any longer. > > Page 10 of the CCTS spec states, regarding conformance: > > 4.3 Conformance > > Applications will be considered to be in full conformance with this > technical specification if they comply with the content of normative > sections, rules and definitions. > > [A1] Conformance shall be determined through adherence to the content of > normative sections, rules and definitions. > > As per our analysis of the CCTS spec against our registry architecture, > we will not be in full conformance with the CCTS spec. This leaves > several options: > > (1) Notify the CCTS Team of those places where we will not be in > conformance (we will do this), and have the CCTS Team update their spec > accordingly; > > MY THOUGHTS: The CCTS Team is under no obligation to do so, any more > than we are under an obligation to be 100% conformant with their spec. > > (2) Notify the CCTS Team of those places where we will not be in > conformance, and assume that they may/may not update their spec > accordingly; we will call our Technical Note "Implementing UN/CEFACT > ebXML Core Components in an ebXML Registry"; > > MY THOUGHTS: Since the CCTS spec is copywritten, can we call our > Technical Note "Implementing UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components in an ebXML > Registry" if we are not in 100% conformance? > > (3) Notify the CCTS Team of those places where we will not be in > conformance, and assume that they may/may not update their spec > accordingly; we will not use the term "UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components" > in the title of our Technical Note, but will instead call something like > "Component-Level Registration and Reuse in an ebXML Registry". We will > state that our work is *based on* the UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components > specification. > > MY THOUGHTS: Not sure of the legal ramifications of this, since the CCTS > spec is copywritten. > > I plan to request on Wed. that Kathryn raise this to the proper OASIS > folks so that it may be investigated from the legal side. In the > meantime, any feedback you would like to give is welcome and > appreciated. > > Thanks! > Joe > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php
begin:vcard n:Chiusano;Joseph tel;work:(703) 902-6923 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bah.com org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012; version:2.1 email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com title:Senior Consultant fn:Joseph M. Chiusano end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]