OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

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


Subject: RE: [ubl] NDR Specification



+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Gutentag
To: Mavis Cournane
Cc: MCRAWFORD@lmi.org; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: 1/3/2005 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ubl] NDR Specification

+1

On 01/03/2005 06:35 AM, Mavis Cournane wrote:
> Mark
> I entirely agree with your motion and second it. In our disposition of

> comments for the NDR Spec in October we addressed the concerns raised
by 
> those casting no votes. What we said back then is still applicable now

> and there is nothing further to add in my opinion.
> 
> Happy New Year to all.
> 
> Regards
> Mavis Cournane
> On 3 Jan 2005, at 12:07, <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org> wrote:
> 
>     Greetings,
>      
>     We received more than sufficient yes votes to pass the NDR
>     specification.  We did receive two no votes (it appears there is a
>     problem with the vote archive page as it indicates a total of 3 no
>     votes but one had been withdrawn and only two remain).  The OASIS
>     processes states:
>      
> 
>     "If at the end of the voting period at least 15 percent of the
>     voting membership has voted to approve the proposed standard, then
>     if no votes have been cast to disapprove the proposed standard, it
>     shall become an OASIS Standard immediately following the end of
the
>     voting period. However, if negative votes amounting to less than
15
>     percent of the voting membership have been cast, the TC will be
>     notified of the negative votes, after which the TC shall have 30
>     days to take one of the following actions by resolution: (a)
request
>     OASIS TC Administration to approve the specification as submitted
>     despite the negative votes; (b) withdraw the submission entirely;
or
>     (c) submit an amended specification, in which case the amended
>     submission shall be considered as if it were a new submission,
>     except that information regarding previous votes and any
disposition
>     of comments received in previous votes shall accompany the amended
>     submission."
> 
>      
> 
>     Our "no" votes and their justification are:
>      
>     BEA Systems:
>      
>     ?BEA Systems votes no on UBL Naming and Design Rules v1.0 as an
>     OASIS Standard. BEA commented during the public review that we
>     believe that distributed extensibility and versioning is a key
>     architectural component of distributed systems and UBL should
allow
>     for distributed extensibility [1]. The UBL TC responded to the
>     effect that exchanging business documents where one side did not
>     have the extension schema - what we have called distributed
>     compatible extensibility - is not in business interests because
both
>     sides must understand any extensions for continued exchange. We
>     believe that this requirement - that all parties in an exchange
must
>     simultaneously deploy new schemas and semantic understanding - is
>     too onerous for business scenarios. There is a long history of
>     compatible evolution of business documents that could be
formalized
>     and fostered by UBL. We are very concerned that this design will
>     lead to very tightly coupled and brittle business systems. We are
>     also concerned that this specification will act as an undesirable
>     model for other specifications."
>      
>     SAP
>      
>     "SAP believes that the "Garden of Eden" approach used in UBL NDR,
>     i.e. to use global element definitions only, is hard to implement
>     and to maintain. The more flexible "Venetian Blind" approach, i.e.
>     to allow local element definitions where appropriate, should be
used
>     instead."
>      
>      
>     These comments are virtually identical to those submitted by these
>     two organizations during the first review period in October.  We
>     addressed both of these comments at our Face 2 Face Meeting in
>     November.  Both are opinions on how best to use XML and XSD -
rather
>     than technical arguments that invalidate the UBL NDR approach. 
>     I would like to make a motion that we recommend to OASIS TC
>     Administration that the NDR become an OASIS standard forthwith and
>     would ask Jon to initiate the most expeditious TC process
available
>     to seek consensus within the TC on my motion.
>      
>      
>     */Mark/*
>     *Mark R. Crawford*
>     *Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead*
>     *W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative*
>     *Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC *
>     *Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group*
>     *Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components*
> 
>     <image.tiff>* *
>     *LMI Government Consulting*
>     *2000 Corporate Ridge*
>     *McLean, VA 22102-7805*
>     *703.917.7177 Phone*
>     *703.655.4810 Wireless*
>     */The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater. /*
> 
>     */www.lmi.org/ *
>      
> 

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail:
eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Corporate Standards            |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616
(internal x31442)
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         W3C AC Rep / W3C AB / OASIS BoD

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/ubl/members/leave_workgroup
.php.


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