Re: [ubl-lcsc] UBL - comment

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

Can I just jump in with a procedural comment.

I understood we had agreed to collate all comments and have the 
QA/editing team assemble them into topics that we would address after 
the close of the period.

Are we jumping in to publicly debate each comment as it comes up?  This 
is why we didn't ask for comments to go to the comment list. I would 
suggest we hold off publishing comments until we are ready to deal with 
them collectively.  In the meantime, let the QA/Editing team deal with 
them and seek further clarification, etc if necessary.

PS
Robert, you are probably not aware of how ironic your comment was - 
hence our urge to share it!

Jon Bosak wrote:

>Robert Shmit's point -- that we should be using standard formats
>for stylesheets and other documentation -- is well taken.  When we
>began the UBL effort there were no such standards, but with the
>creation of openoffice -- a complete, free, open-source office
>productivity suite that saves everything as XML -- and the
>contribution of the openoffice XML formats to OASIS, there's
>really no reason for continuing this practice.
>
>It's true, as Ken points out, that openoffice can open all the
>.xls files without complaint, but that doesn't change the fact
>that we're publishing an important part of our specifications
>using a proprietary data format.  As long as we persist in this
>practice, we will be forever bound to make the open source suite
>implement the proprietary format.  Also, the fact that the
>openoffice format is XML should make it easier (in principle) to
>maintain the perl script used to generate the xsd.
>
>The OASIS eGov technical committee set the example I think we
>should be following at its first meeting in Baltimore last month
>when it decided that it would use only OASIS formats for its
>papers and specifications.  I think that we should adopt the same
>policy.
>
>It seems to me that the 0p70 review cycle is the perfect
>opportunity to get all of our formats over to openoffice before we
>have to publish the next big release in May.  We have to figure
>out how to publish UBL Part 2 as a single document in this span
>anyway, so we might as well make the changeover at the same time.
>
>Let's talk about this some more when we meet in Denver Monday.
>
>Jon
>
>   Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:29:10 -0500
>   From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
>
>   At 2003-01-28 09:13 -0800, Bill Meadows wrote:
>   >Content-type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
>   >Content-MD5: 2PPxAHIjM3zajJYVUbAwbw==
>   >
>   >  I never thought I'd be accused of this...
>
>   :{)}
>
>   Not sure what he is complaining about:
>
>   (1) - Open Office seems to open all .xls files without complaint
>
>   (2) - the schemas, instances and stylesheets are platform independent
>
>   (3) - the "ubl.bat" file (not that he needs to run it to use the library) 
>   contains only one active line which is a Perl invocation, so could be 
>   considered documentation rather than mandatory execution
>
>   (4) - my stylesheet rebuilding processes (linked from the deliverable) are 
>   all in Python
>
>   I don't see anything jump out at me as platform specific to warrant his 
>   comment.
>
>   ....................... Ken
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142