RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group

["Karl F. Best" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>]

David Welsh wrote:

> I believe BTP was begun before OASIS signed the Memo of
> Understanding with CEFACT, to jointly continue ebXML development;
> so there might be a timing issue causing the question of
> overlaping objectives.

That is correct. The OASIS BTP TC Call For Participation was sent out on 18
January 2001 (see
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200101/msg00002.html), and
the first meeting was held 13 March. The MoU between OASIS and UN/CEFACT was
signed 11 May.

The BTP TC Call For Participation identified how the work of this TC relates
to that of ebXML, which Alastair Green clarified in a posting earlier today.
The MoU applied only to the future of the ebXML work, and said nothing about
the status of other OASIS or UN/CEFACT work.

> 'Conflict' might be a strong term, and I've heard how to form a
> TC but I'm not familar with the OASIS TC on-going workings, so
> perhaps someone at the OASIS management level would get involved
> here align the TC work on the OASIS side of the house ?

OASIS technical work is driven by our members; i.e. our members decide what
technical work we will do. Our technical process (see
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml) allows any three of our
members to form a technical committee on any topic, even if that effort
happens to duplicate the work of other groups. We do our best to ensure
collaboration, and have a good history of getting competitive groups to work
together, but there may on ocassion be duplicate efforts. But I don't think
that this is the case with BTP.


</karl>
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org