RE: We don't need to do XML.org after all

[Laura Walker <laurawalker@earthlink.net>]

Whoah.  Let's seek first to understand, and then to be understood.

Firstly, I don't think anyone hs a clear idea of what's going to come out 
of the ebXML, other than things EDI. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ToR 
are sufficiently vague to allow for infinite interpretation.  I must 
gently suggest that the onus is upon us to make our intentions known 
before we go around criticizing others for having the same ideas. After 
all, how would they know?

If anything, we should appreciate the validation offered to XML.org. I 
believe that there are many companies interested in what Keenan proposes 
-- most of whom are not yet OASIS members.

And before you get too comfortable about telling me which conversations 
are appropriate for me to engage in ... I have spoken with Keenan exactly 
3 times; once today. The Board is well aware of my conversations with 
Keenan. At this point, our conversations have been focused on how OASIS 
can support domain-specific XML application development efforts. I have 
not gotten into details about this domain with him.

I must also gently suggest that we resist the urge to become territorial, 
and that we instead concentrate our energies on doing something 
constructive. Which, in this case, might be bringing Keenan up to speed on 
all of our activities (?) in this space.

I believe we are attempting to schedule an XML.org F2F for this Thursday 
evening, from 7-9. I suggest we discuss it then.

FYI -- at least one XML.org sponsoring company is involved here.






On Monday, November 08, 1999 9:09 AM, Bob Glushko 
[SMTP:Bob.glushko@commerceone.com] wrote:
| > Jon,
| >
| > I've been talking with Vernon over the past several weeks. He is
| > interested in forming a working group (possibly a consortium)
| > focused on
| > XML applications for ecommerce (specifically: auctions, large
| > financial
| > transactions, etc.) under the OASIS umbrella.
|
| Everything proposed by Keenan is already within the scope of
| OASIS/XML.ORG
| as far as Commerce One is concerned, especially with the emerging
| relationships between OASIS and UN/CEFACT (ebXML) and with CommerceNet
| (with
| eco). Many of the commerce domains in which Keenan proposes to develop
| XML
| schemas are already being addressed by efforts under way - what we need
| is a
| process for moving these efforts toward XML.ORG with the architectural
| consistency that is the goal of ebXML. We don't need to start them over
| inside of XML.ORG.  This process for encouraging these WGs to join the
| XML.ORG fold is what I thought Jon and Terry and others were working on.
|
| Frankly, I think it is outrageously arrogant of Keenan to propose his
| own
| little empire inside of XML.ORG.  Is he even an individual member of
| OASIS?
| We have enough trouble coordinating XML.ORG with OASIS, and the reason
| why
| Commerce One became a sponsor and why I've worked so hard to get
| something
| like ebXML off the ground is because we can't afford all the duplication
| of
| efforts to develop XML specifications for commerce. Commerce One will
| NOT
| support any attempt to further splinter these efforts by creating yet
| another sub-organization with another level of governance, dues, and so
| on.
| No, let me make that stronger. We will FIGHT it.  Count one vote NO on
| Keenan's proposal.
|
| I feel very strongly about this. I am stunned that Laura could be having
| discussions with a nonmember about a topic so fundamental to companies
| like
| mine without mentioning it to xml.org!  Laura, let's try to make xml.org
| work before we hollow it out for the benefit of free riders like Keenan.
|  If
| he wants to join XML.ORG and tell us how to run it, give him the address
| to
| which he can send his $35,000 check.  If he has so many other companies
| willing to do this, they can all send us their $35,000 checks.
|
| In the meantime, I recommend we tell him No THANKS and be done with it.
|
|
| bob