Re: [ubl-comment] Metastandards

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

Oh, I see great possibilities here.  We can define new context drivers for standards associations!

Stephenie Cooper wrote:

> Yes, do reuse it at ebTWG.  Perhaps you might want to declare it to be a core object for which extension rules should be defined ;-)
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@mmiec.com]
>         Sent: Thu 1/31/2002 3:07 PM
>         To: ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; Stephenie Cooper
>         Cc: jon.bosak@sun.com; mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com
>         Subject: Re: [ubl-comment] Metastandards
>
>
>         That was spectacular.  Stephanie, can we show it at ebTWG next week (adaptive re-use!), as long as I promise not to call it Jon's parliamentary guide?   Jamie
>
>         PS   If I were to make that ridiculous claim, or reveal it as the Secret CEFACT e-Battle Plan, that would be applying "context".
>
>         PPS   When we are done laughing, it should be sufficiently sobering that meta-standards will be the precise center of the next multi-billion dollar battlefield.  :)   But more about that later.
>
>         At 01:34 PM 1/31/02, Jon Bosak wrote:
>
>
>                 At the EIDX/CompTIA meeting in Palo Alto this week, Stephenie
>                 Cooper gave a presentation on standards for the creation of
>                 standards that will, I hope, provide no guidance whatsoever for
>                 the UBL effort.  * * *
>
>         ~ James Bryce Clark
>         ~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.
>         ~ Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce
>         ~ 1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com    jbc@lawyer.com
>         ~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask me why.

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com