FW: [cpexchange-wg] FW: CPExchange Conference Call Notes 6/12/01

[Ram Kumar <rkumar@msi.com.au>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Wyke, Allen [mailto:awyke@engage.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 8:27 AM
To: 'Ron Schmelzer '; 'cpexchange-wg@yahoogroups.com '
Cc: 'cpexchange-net@yahoogroups.com '
Subject: RE: [cpexchange-wg] FW: CPExchange Conference Call Notes
6/12/01


That's my point - any areas not directly translated, are specific to the
standards, which is their founding purpose. Merging the two would imply
users of each need all the collective information, which I am not sure
about. Transforming on the core features allows you to support shared areas,
which is all that you are going to care about if you do not already support
both/all.

I also disagree with the comment that without P3P and Jurisdiction,
CPExchange elements would be left hanging. I say that confidently, because I
am working on something that is otherwise. P3P and Jurisdiction are just the
requirements I had that pushed me over to CPExchange.

At this point, without a formal review of xNAL, xCIL, etc., there is no
reason to even talk about merging. The data models are nothing - that's
easy. The purpose of these efforts, on the other hand, are the real issues.
If the target users are different and their needs, then a merge would only
result in something that is overweight and spread too thin.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Schmelzer
To: cpexchange-wg@yahoogroups.com
Cc: cpexchange-net@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 6/20/01 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [cpexchange-wg] FW: CPExchange Conference Call Notes  6/12/01

While this is a good suggestion, it may only be valid if there is a
one-to-one mapping between CIQ and CPExchange data sets. I think the
fundamental designs and purposes of these standards may be different. I
think CIQ was formed without specific knowledge of CPExchange or intent
to
be different from the standard, but regardless, the overlap may not be
as
close as possible to transform tags in a "simple" manner using XSLT.

For example, if there is no notion of P3P support or Jurisdiction,
CPExchange tags would be left "hanging" with nothing to be transformed
to or
from...

In any case, I believe we all need to be much more informed about what
is
going on with the CIQ efforts (xNAL, xCIL, et al) before any solutions
of
any kind can be proposed. The more you know, the more you win ;)

If Ram is still on this email list, I invite you to participate in this
discussion...

Good luck all!
Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wyke, Allen" <awyke@engage.com>
To: <cpexchange-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: [cpexchange-wg] FW: CPExchange Conference Call Notes
6/12/01


> I think it is also worth nothing that there is a secondary option to
merging
> efforts. While I must admit I have not reviewed the CIQ efforts yet
(doing
> so thihs week), I expect we will find that there is a common core set
of
> functionality between CIQ and CPExchange. I am also guessing each will
have
> their own features specific to each implementation - otherwise, why
would
> the CIQ group being an effort after CPExchange was started?
>
> In any case, a possible and probable solution is to provide an XSLT
> tranformation between the standards. This would provide vendors/users
the
> ability to support each effort seemlessly. This also allows each group
to
> focus on areas they excel in, without having a merged and bloated
standard.
>
> I will send a more detailed list of comments hopefully by the end of
the
day
> Friday.
>
> Allen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart, Leonard
> To: 'cpexchange-wg@yahoogroups.com'
> Sent: 6/20/01 5:34 PM
> Subject: RE: [cpexchange-wg] FW: CPExchange Conference Call Notes
6/12/01
>
> Let me apologize to all for not being available for the conference
call.
> As
> you may know GCA is in the middle of transitioning away from PIA (July
> 1),
> and things have been a bit nuts for me trying to coordinate the
project.
>
> That stated,  Ron I think you and Ram are correct in terms of
reviewing
> possible synergies, and that option is currently under consideration
by
> the
> membership.   That is why I commended OASIS-CIQ  site to the members
of
> the
> group so folk with a much stronger technical bent than myself could
look
> at
> the CIQ messages and use that as a criteria for assessing synergy.
Once
> we
> make such an assessment, we can determine the specifics of any
> integration
> strategy that we would propose.  So the long and short of it is the
> option
> remains open, we very much want to have dialogue with OASIS, but want
to
> make sure we have an intelligent dialogue.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Schmelzer [mailto:rschmelzer@zapthink.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:01 PM
> To: cpexchange-wg@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cpexchange-wg] FW: CPExchange Conference Call Notes
> 6/12/01
>
>
> While I didn't participate in the conference call, I have been urging
> CPExchange to consider efforts to merge its activities with OASIS. I
am
> not
> sure what the direction of the CPexchange group is, but I would highly
> recommend we at least get together with the CIQ group at OASIS and
> identify
> points of synergy. I participated in an earlier conference call when
we
> decided that we would evaluate the opportunity to merge efforts. I am
> not
> sure what happened to that option.
>
> If anyone wants to discuss this further with me, please do send me
email
> at
> rschmelzer@zapthink.com. For the record, ZapThink supports a merger of
> efforts between CPExchange and OASIS for a number of reasons including
> momentum, current stage of development, and the impact that OASIS has
in
> the
> standards arena.
>
> Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ram Kumar" <rkumar@msi.com.au>
> To: <cpexchange-wg@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:05 PM
> Subject: RE: [cpexchange-wg] FW: CPExchange Conference Call Notes
> 6/12/01
>
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > I quote the following text from the conference call notes:
> > "All agreed that we should look into what OASIS has accomplished, to
> get
> > ideas for our next version.  However, we should keep the specs
apart.
> As
> > one of Leonard's action items, he scanned the OASIS site and
e-mailed
> the
> > group a list of the four (4) standards to view, and to be discussed
at
> the
> > next conference call or WEBEX conference. "
> >
> > I am  keen to know what CPExchange has decided regarding working
with
> OASIS.
> > >From the above text, it appears to me
> > that CPExchange wants to maintains its independent direction despite
> knowing
> > that there is lot of synergy in work between
> > OASIS and CPExchange. Please advise.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ram
> > Chair
> > CIQ TC
> > OASIS
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gillespie, Rosemary F. [mailto:rgillespie@printing.org]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 4:14 AM
> > > To: 'cpexchange-wg@yahoogroups.com'
> > > Subject: [cpexchange-wg] FW: CPExchange Conference Call
> > > Notes  6/12/01
> > >
> > >  << File: Doc3_.doc >>
> >
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to:   cpexchange-wg@eGroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
< http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>
> < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> <
>
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=201903.1435627.3015748.304267/S=1702208620:N/A=590
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=201903.1435627.3015748.304267/S=1702208620:N/A=59
0>
> 948
> <
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=201903.1435627.3015748.304267/S=1702208620:N/A=59
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=201903.1435627.3015748.304267/S=1702208620:N/A=59
>
> 0948>
> /R=2/*
> http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?ydomains+merchant-ad:dmad/M=20190
<http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?ydomains+merchant-ad:dmad/M=20190>

> <
http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?ydomains+merchant-ad:dmad/M=20190
<http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?ydomains+merchant-ad:dmad/M=20190>
>
>
> 3.1435627.3015748.304267/S=1702208620:N/A=590948/R=3/992995531+
> http://domain <http://domain>  < http://domain <http://domain> >
> s.yahoo.com/>
> www.
> src=
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   cpexchange-wg@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> >
> > Service.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> <
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190481.1491588.3061929.2/S=1702208620:N/A=613957/
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190481.1491588.3061929.2/S=1702208620:N/A=613957/
>
> ? http://www.neway.org <http://www.neway.org> > www.newaydirect.com
>
> <
http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=190481.1491588.3061929.2/D=egroupmail/
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=190481.1491588.3061929.2/D=egroupmail/
>
> S=1702208620:N/A=613957/rand=342803685>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   cpexchange-wg@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> > .
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   cpexchange-wg@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>
>



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168002.1477935.3051340.2/S=1702208620:N/A=624147/
*http://mojofarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-2?bn=MaximusDVD468>
Click for Details
Click for Details

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=168002.1477935.3051340.2/D=egroupmail/
S=1702208620:N/A=624147/rand=188707040>

To Post a message, send it to:   cpexchange-wg@eGroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

To Post a message, send it to:   cpexchange-wg@eGroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/