[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: ACXO minutes on the XML Cover Pages
Hi Jon. It's unclear whether I have any natural relationship to XML.org and to the ACXO deliberations on the new XML.org web site, but since my work on "The XML Cover Pages" is referenced in the minutes of the recent ACXO meeting [2001.04.30], I thought I might justifiably send this word of inquiry. Would you kindly forward this note to the ACXO list if the mailing list software does not send it through to the list subscribers? I submit this request for clarification in a spirit of willingness to cooperate creatively toward the support of XML.org as best I can, while upholding the interests of OASIS Sponsors, and personal concerns for the quality, longevity, cohesiveness, and commercial value of my work. Re the item in the ACXO meeting minutes: "2. We recommend that XML.org provide the primary interface to the Cover Pages." This recommendation of ACXO to the OASIS Board is puzzling to me; to the extent that I can guess at a meaning, it's also disappointing. Perhaps if my puzzlement is relieved, the disappointment will be banished as well. I therefore ask for clarification that you might be willing to offer. I am puzzled for two reasons: 1. XML.org and The XML Cover Pages have been characterized to me as two independent OASIS portal "business units", each with its own cost center, revenue center, sponsors, and other accounting. If this is accurate [placing here no judgment on whether this is a good business strategy for OASIS], then I cannot understand how it makes sense for the XML Cover Pages content to be purveyed via/through an XML.org "interface", whether "primary" or secondary. A. Why should the financial sponsors of the XML Cover Pages be pleased to see the content they "pay for" be given to XML.org, where the brand/content benefit goes in significant measure to the financial sponsors of XML.org? B. Why should the financial sponsors of the XML Cover Pages think this arrangement is fair, given that the sponsors of XML.org may have ZERO (!) commitment to the goals of OASIS, while they (the sponsors of the XML Cover Pages) are required to be an OASIS 'Sponsor' Member in order to quality for sponsorship of the XML Cover Pages? [My understanding is that XML.org sponsors need not be OASIS members at all.] Could one not reasonably claim, under this arrangement, that XML.org's commercial goals and the interests of its sponsors are being subsidized by the OASIS sponsors of the XML Cover Pages? Such a strategy can have only one predictable effect: to make the job of raising sponsorships for the XML Cover Pages more difficult, if not impossible. This proposed move simply adds to the existing problem of a deck stacked very much AGAINST the survival of the XML Cover Pages (brand), as hosted by OASIS. I can only assume that the OASIS Board and ACXO are aware of the several elements in this "stacked deck;" I suspect that most impartial business people, OASIS sponsors or otherwise, might consider the strategy hostile to the long-term welfare of the XML Cover Pages database. 2. I am puzzled by the ACXO language which recommends making XML.org the provider of the primary interface to the XML Cover Pages. This recommendation could possibly make sense if the ACXO members are under the impression that my work is a "work for hire" on behalf of OASIS -- which may therefore authorize decisions about the constitution, distribution, and use of my work as appropriate to any typical work for hire. Perhaps now is a good time to clarify to you that my services to OASIS are *not* a work for hire, but are governed broadly by principles of agreement that assume cooperation in strategic decisions, including the two especially relevant notions: a) that my work is to be understood as belonging to a cohesive, coherent body of information having its own distinct (brand) identity b) that OASIS' use of the content I create, under various alternative models (possible print format, etc.), is agreed not to constitute creation of a derivative work that is competitive to the XML Cover Pages My puzzlement is simply this: I cannot envision a meaning of: XML.org = "the primary interface to" "the XML Cover Pages" which honors the principles of the OASIS agreement. I am sure the ACXO does not intend to recommend a decision by the OASIS Board which would be inconsistent with its commitments. Can someone on the ACXO help me understand the ACXO proposal in further detail: how it makes sense for OASIS Sponsors, how it makes sense for me? I feel that a range of excellent opportunities are available for maximizing the (possibly under-realized) value of the XML Cover Pages as an asset in the OASIS framework. I see no reason, theoretically, why XML.org could not also be part of a creative arrangement, if the business model makes sense for all the stakeholders. I pledge my willingness to creatively cooperate toward the realization of those new possibilities. I hope that OASIS and XML.org management will be able to think of me as one key "stakeholder" in the discussion. Many thanks, Robin Cover
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC