[ubl] Re: BL: Fwd: OASIS Members to Develop Universal Business Language

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

[tthomasma@mediaone.net:]

| OAGI will continue its efforts toward interoperability standards
| convergence.  I urge you to do the same.  I hope that at your
| upcoming meeting you will develop a plan to engage full
| participation in your effort from other groups, particularly OAGI
| and ebTWG.

Yes, I'm trying very hard to enlist the cooperation of other
groups in this space -- in particular, X12, UN/CEFACT, and
RosettaNet as well as OAGI.

| In Montreal I offered this proposal (which David Connelly
| supports) to the UBL Group: "That the UBL Group's members join the
| OAGI and achieve the UBL Group's aims by taking over the existing
| OAGIS+xCBL project, by fully participating in all other OAGI
| activities that are of interest, and by initiating new projects."
| Before the UBL Group goes into cold storage, could you please vote
| either to accept or decline my invitation and send me your reply?

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

UBL is dedicated to the creation of a single set of XML schemas
for common business documents.  If it succeeds in this endeavor,
it will have created a very important and (from a proprietary
point of view) potentially very valuable piece of intellectual
property.  Since everyone engaging in the work will be
contributing expensive expert resources to the creation of this
IP, we, and especially the companies paying our salaries, need to
know the following about it:

 - Who owns it?

 - Who controls the terms under which it is licensed?

 - Who has the right to create derivative works from it?

 - Who has the right to use its name or brand?

 - Who decides its future development?

A key reason for basing UBL on xCBL is because we know that we can
derive another specification from xCBL without worrying about
legal claims from the people who created it.  A key reason for
doing the work in OASIS is so that it's carried out under a clear
IP policy that invests ownership in a nonprofit corporation that
anyone can join and whose processes and governance are open to
public view.  This was also a reason for considering the EDIFACT
Working Group as a potential venue for this activity.

Your proposal is, in effect, a proposal to spend our resources
creating a valuable work that will then be owned by OAGI.  I have
tried to obtain information about OAGI that would enable us to
find answers to the questions listed above, but so far without
success.  I do know, however, that OAGI membership is not open to
everyone, and I know that its internal decision-making processes
are not visible to the public.  As far as my employer is
concerned, this puts the donation of my services to OAGI into a
category separate from the donation of those services to
organizations such as OASIS, EWG, ISO, and other true standards
bodies.  I believe that this would hold true for most other
members of the UBL Group as well.

I appreciate the good intent behind your proposal, and I very much
hope that we can find a way in which the unquestioned technical
expertise represented by OAGI can, along with the expertise
represented by other industry organizations, contribute to a work
that will truly belong to everyone.

Best regards,

Jon