TC identifiers in normative URIs for specs, etc.

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

Excerpt from TC minutes:
>ebBP TC 14 December 2004 teleconference
>* * *
>2. Schema and specification review.
>
>a. BPSS identifiers (proposed by Dale Moberg):
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/email/archives/200412/msg00010.html
>
>Martin: Do we use the TC name or the name of the specification for the 
>BPSS identifiers?
>Dubray: Is there an IP issue? I replaced BPSS with ebBP for that reason.
>Martin: Will query Jamie Clark.
>         Note: Query sent to Jamie Clark week of 14 Dec 2004.

     Regarding Dale's message 9linked above):  we expect that the draft TAB 
guidelines, or something close to those, will be adopted as a normative 
form fairly soon, so they are the best guidance currently available.  I am 
copying my colleague Mary McRae who wrote the current OASIS templates, in 
case she has any further thoughts about this.
     Regarding JJ's question about references to "ebBP' versus 'BPSS":  We 
have no indication that BPSS is a trademarked term, and if there are any 
rights in it, OASIS as co-owner of the original ebXML work (including BPSS 
1.0x)  holds them equally with CEFACT.  I can see no reason to avoid using 
the "BPSS" designation, if it is  appropriate, from a technical 
perspective, to associate the current work (your 2.0) with the original 
approved work (1.01 circa May 2001).   Certainly that was the original 
intent of the project as described in your charter.
     As you may know, OASIS and UN/ECE have been conferring at a high level 
to make sure that we have a harmonious relationship for the further 
development of ebXML.  Currently CEFACT leadership has indicated that they 
welcome further progress on BPSS, are aware of this TC's progress, and have 
expressed no objection to the completion of its work on a stable, 
successful v2.0.  Frankly, I think they hope that after the current 
drafting round there will be an opportunity for the various communities of 
interest at OASIS and CEFACT to re-merge.
     Thinking ahead, it seems likely that one issue that would arise in a 
future reconciliation of the various lines of work is the extent to which 
the OASIS BPSS adheres to the instruction from the 2001 ebXML requirements 
document that (a) business process modeling techniques are optional, rather 
than mandatory, and that (b) if a modeling approach is used, it should be 
the CEFACT UMM.   When we wrote that, some years ago, it was with somewhat 
stable UMM versions (e.g. R10) in mind.   Whether there are later stable, 
interoperable, vetted and approved versions is not a question I've 
explored.  I mention this potential dependency only to point out that the 
extent of compatibility between your 2.0 and a known UMM version would be a 
useful datum, in further attempts to align the various works in the future.
     Regards  Jamie

~   James Bryce Clark
~   Director, Standards Development, OASIS
~   +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office