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] [Fwd: [regrep-semantic] IBM BI-ICS]


Farrukh,

Just to re-iterate your point - I did post to the CAM list an
email notifying them of the ICS work - on Jan 21st this year,
as soon as I was made aware of it.  That posted included
a comparison and an assessment of the validation effect
it has on the CAM approach itself.

I also posted a note to Scott pointing out to him that the
jCAM processor was available for collaboration around
as open source, and that CAM syntax provides all the
syntax support that ICS does - since it uses a similar
method based on Schematron.  He declined to do that.

The ICS processor does indeed require acceptance of IBMs
licensing agreement to download and use.

I'm certainly done on this topic.

I'm pleased to remind everyone that the CAM specification
is currently in 30 day review within the OASIS standards
process.  We've had several good review comments back
already - and we welcome more such - and especially
of course from the registry team.  The link is at the top
of the OASIS main home page.

Thanks, DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
To: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [regrep] [Fwd: [regrep-semantic] IBM BI-ICS]


> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> >Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> >
> >
> >>David RR Webber wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Joe,
> >>>
> >>>OK - despite Scott saying that BC-ICS is not IBMs answer to CAM,
> >>>the fact remains that if you have CAM, which we do, CAM is available
> >>>in open source - and an OASIS spec' - then there is absolutely no
> >>>earthly reason why you would want to do ICS instead.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>+1
> >>
> >>We should not even consider a spec until it is in an open standards
body.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Farrukh, could you please elaborate on your meaning of "consider"?
> >
> >
> By "consider" I mean discuss as TC business. Sending an FYI is fine to
> keep people
> informed on events. However, an open standards activity should not in my
> opinion
> waste time discussing proprietary specs.
>
> >Separately: I do think that it's wise for technical committees (OASIS
> >and beyond) to be aware of what is out there, and - out of that set -
> >what is likely to be advanced into an open standards consortium in the
> >future, and how likely.
> >
> >
> I agree that "to be aware of what is out there" is important for any
> technologist.
> That is why I see nothing wrong with sharing information as an FYI with
> the TC like
> we often do.
>
> My concern level rises when we as a TC start spending collective cycles
> on a
> proprietary spec.
>
> Thats said, we are all free to express whatever opinions we hold and
> participate in whatever
> threads we want. If a discussion gets too off-topic then the TC chair
> can intercede.
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
>
>
> 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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>



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