OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [regrep] Web Site update request


<Quote1>
mm1: See comments above.  The case study also indicates one of its next 
steps is to more so closely align with the evolving cc-regrep-review 
work.  Thank you.
</Quote1>

That does not change my stand, which is that we should not publish
anything that contradicts the work that is currently being done (whether
here or on ebXML.org). I will take this issue up further with Kathryn
privately.

They document also states:

"The model has been shared with the OASIS community through the Registry
TC and has served as one of the starting points for the cc-review
sub-committee under that TC."

This is completely incorrect - the model was never considered to be a
starting point for our work.

<Quote2>
Your comment: "It is also listed as being copyright OASIS, 
</Quote2>

I honestly don't see why this is not a black-and-white issue. My
question is: should this be copyright OASIS? My assumption is no, as it
was not developed under OASIS. I really don't understand why there is
any ambiguity here. I would recommend that we defer this issue to
Kathryn to take up with Karl Best et al. 

Monica Martin wrote:
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> ><Quote>
> >I would suggest you get more information prior to inferring what you
> >indicated above which raises undue concerns or confusion.
> ></Quote>
> >
> >Monica: First of all, I would like a public apology for your completely
> >unprofessional behavior and false accusation.
> >
> >
> mm1: The comment was related to:
> 
> Your comment: "It is also listed as being copyright OASIS, which is incorrect (at an extreme, it can be considered fraud - not accusing anyone of that though)."
> 
> This project completed the template provided by the ebXML Joint
> Marketing Team.  I am sorry you consider my raising the concern about
> your statement to be unprofessional.  Any such statement could lead to
> confusion and be misinterpreted. I am unclear what is unprofessional
> here, although if you wish to discuss it further please elaborate or
> contact me privately.
> 
> Although I can not speak for LoMakeFi, I do believe they intend to
> provide the API as open source and it was reported last week  in the NII
> Conference in Taipei that it would be donated (and this is indicated in
> the case study report).
> 
> I would be happy to ask the originators of this case study if they
> require any copyright on this, as that was not originally requested.
> Both Mark Crawford and I (and Mark very directly) coordinated with the
> LoMakeFi team to get the case study finished and presented at a brief in
> Taipei last week. The project team was also very keen to have it
> published as soon as possible on www.ebxml.org.  If you have concerns
> about its conflict with the cc-regrep-review work, perhaps a balanced
> compromise would be to have a link from www.ebxml.org once the case
> study is published.
> 
> >Second of all, the Abstract says the following:
> >
> >"Republica's LomakeFi Form Assembler tool is one of the results of a
> >project that aimed to produce electronic forms for the Finnish
> >Government based on existing paper forms. It uses the ebXML Core
> >Component approach to define the form parts and relies on ebXML Registry
> >to store information about these parts. This case study presents this
> >tool, the registry-based environment behind it and the work developed by
> >Republica Ltd for this project."
> >
> >The word "donate" does not even appear anywhere in the document.
> >
> >
> mm1: See comments above.  The case study also indicates one of its next
> steps is to more so closely align with the evolving cc-regrep-review
> work.  Thank you.
> 
> >Third of all, I have no idea what LomakeFI is, so I could not have been
> >aware of anything that your speaking of.
> >
> >Joe
> >
> >Monica Martin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have the following concerns with posting the Case Study paper on our
> >>>site:
> >>>
> >>>(1) The paper is not an OASIS product, yet it uses the OASIS and ebXML
> >>>logos and format. It is also listed as being copyright OASIS, which is
> >>>incorrect (at an extreme, it can be considered fraud - not accusing
> >>>anyone of that though).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>mm1: The paper was submitted as you see by the LoMakeFi project (OASIS
> >>did not complete this case study).  We have also opted with other case
> >>studies to provide a copyright if the originator requested it (such as
> >>for Apelon with SAGE project).
> >>
> >>If you note the work submission, the project team is going to donate
> >>their work to ebxmlrr or into the Reg/Rep effort.
> >>
> >>I would suggest you get more information prior to inferring what you
> >>indicated above which raises undue concerns or confusion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>(2) The paper describes approaches to implementation of Core Components
> >>>in ebXML registry that are not necessarily in line with the approaches
> >>>that we will be proposing as part of the Technical Note (in fact I can
> >>>tell you that there are contridictions). As Chair of the Core Components
> >>>Review Subcommittee, I request that this paper not be listed on our
> >>>site.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>mm1: Whether or not it follows the recommendations of ebXML Reg/Rep
> >>should not devalue the work that was done nor its relevance as a
> >>Registry/Repository implementation. If you used this entrance criteria,
> >>many projects could not be communicated to the community.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Respectfully,
> >>>Joe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
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]