[ubl-msc] Re: UBL White Paper

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM>]

ubl-msc,

Please see comments below from Tim McGrath.

Jon

==================================================================

Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:50:25 +0800
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: jon.bosak@Sun.COM
Subject: UBL White Paper

I am not sure if you are taking comments on the marketing
whitepaper, but i must confess to having had a quick look.  i
figured you may be using this for your XML 2001 slides, so i
thought i should give my reactions.

Several times you have used the term "form" or "forms" to describe
the deliverables of UBL.  Whilst i understand you to mean the
constructs or data structures, "form" also has meaning in the
sense of document and/or web forms.  We dont want anyone inferring
that we are designing "fill in the boxes forms".  In a similar
vein, the use of the word "component" is a bit overloaded and may
imply connections with ebXML core components.  If its not too
techie, i suggest constructs or structures may be a better term.

On page 4 para 2., should it say "single vocabulary" not "single
syntax"?

On Page 6 para 4., it is reasonable to say ebMXL supports
'incremental adoption' and you can use UBL without any ebXML
framework - even for internal system integration!

On Page 6 "Deliverable 1", the deliverable could say "reusable
structures that can be combined to create electronic business
documents".

On Page 8 "Transport/Logistics category" , the notes in
parenthesis are un-necessary and confusing

I think the comparison, UBL is to XML as HTML was to SGML, is
brilliant marketing!

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