FW: re Norbert's remarks

[Norbert Mikula <Norbert@DataChannel.com>]

I believe the proper thing is to discuss this via the actc and workprocess 
list and not state individual perspectives as consensus (I am also guilty
here). 
I for one, as my previous e-mail to the indicates, believe that a
specification 
per se can be subject of a TC.

I personally believe that the subject of discours *IS* tpaML
as drafted by IBM and also believe that the TC itself and its scope 
as such is proper (I agree that the issue of XML.org and 
submission/standardization may be unfortunate wording).

----------------------------------------------
Norbert H. Mikula 
Chief Technology Officer/DataChannel
Norbert@DataChannel.com 
Chief Technical Officer/OASIS
Norbert.Mikula@Oasis-Open.org 
DataChannel, 600 108th Avenue NE 9th Floor, Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: 425.462.1999 Fax: 425.637.1192 <http://www.datachannel.com/> 



-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Allen [mailto:tallen@sonic.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 3:27 PM
To: tpaml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: re Norbert's remarks



from http://www-4.ibm.com/software/developer/library/tpaml.html

 IBM : developerWorks : XML : Library - papers


  XML specification for business-to-business transactions

January 2000


IBM has submitted a specification for defining and implementing
electronic contracts to OASIS, a vendor-neutral standards body.
The specification -- called tpaML (Trading Partner Agreement Markup
 Language) -- uses XML and was submitted to OASIS for
standardization within its XML.org initiative.

=======

My point is that right now the task of the discussion leader is
to conduct discussion on the question of the desireability of
specifying *a* Trading Partner Agreement ML (as correctly
phrased in the Call), and that "submitted to OASIS" is being
used improperly in the context of OASIS TC formation.

(Needless to say, XML.org isn't standardizing anything, and
TPAML wasn't submitted to the XML.org catalogue of DTDs for
the purpose of standardization because that's not the catalogue's
purpose.)

Once the TC is formed, if it is, it would be perfectly in order
for IBM to put forward TPAML for discussion and adoption.  But
we're not at that point now.                

regards, Terry

Terry Allen                             
Document Engineering Group               
Commerce One, Inc.
Mountain View, Calif.
tallen[at]sonic.net