OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-jc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [ebxml-jc] submitting ebXML specs to ISO

ebXML TC chairs:

As you're probably aware, we've been talking for quite some time about 
eventually submitting the ebXML specification to another standards body 
(e.g. ISO) for approval under their process. This was one of the "going 
forward" goals agreed upon in Vienna at the end of the first phase of 
ebXML. From the OASIS perspective we wanted to wait until the OASIS 
specs (Msg, Reg, CPPA) had gone through the OASIS process, which they 
all have. CEFACT's specs, CC and BPSS, are still not complete. But there 
is also interest from ISO in having the specs submitted.

Last month I worked together with the folks from ISO Central Secretariat 
(CS)  and with Ray Walker, representing CEFACT, to put together a 
submission of the complete package of ebXML specs (TA and Req from 
Vienna, the four OASIS Standards, and a cover letter; BPSS and CC would 
be submitted as soon as they are complete) that would be sent out to ISO 
TC154 for approval as an ISO Technical Specification (TS). Ray and I 
worked towards completing the submission package thinking that the JCC 
(the joint OASIS/CEFACT governance of ebXML) would have the opportunity 
to review the package and ISO ballot before it went out to TC154, but 
because of miscommunication ISO CS thought that the package was complete 
and approved to go out, so sent the ballot to TC154. Upon hearing that 
the ballot had gone out without JCC approval the JCC asked ISO CS to 
withdraw the ballot until we had time to review the submission. We have 
promised ISO CS that we would have a decision for them by 18 February. 
(You may have heard about some of this going on, so I thought it best to 
inform you what was going on.)

Between now and the 18th the JCC is considering a number of options. The 
CEFACT members of the JCC would like to review the entire decision to 
make sure that they are comfortable with how and where we will be 
submitting. So while they are considering the decision we thought that 
we should get feedback from the ebXML TC chairs also. Please get back to 
me in the next week if you have any concerns about the following:

1. Is there value in submitting the ebXML specifications to be approved 
under process of another organization?

We propose that the answer is Yes.

2. Should the specs be submitted individually or as a package? If 
individually, should each go to a different organization or TC? If as a 
package, do we have to wait for the completion of BPSS and CC to submit 
any of them?

We propose that the eight specs should be submitted as a package in 
order to retain the single ebXML identity.

3. To which organization should the ebXML specs be submitted? 
(Candidates include ISO, ITU, W3C, others.)

We propose that the entire set of eight specifications be submitted to 
ISO, to be voted upon individually; this will allow BPSS and CC to be 
submitted later and not hold up the vote on the completed pieces.

4. If at ISO, which TC at ISO should the ballot go to?

We propose that TC154, the ISO TC for e-business standards, would be 
most applicable to the ebXML package as a whole, but may not have 
expertise in specific areas such as registry or messaging. Other TCs may 
be applicable to individual ebXML specifications, e.g. JTC1 SC32 would 
be appropriate for the Registry specification, but we see the benefit of 
keeping the specs together as a single package. ISO CS has proposed that 
TC154 start a new WG that would include participation from SC32 and 
other groups that may have expertise in specific areas.

5. If at ISO, under what status? IS (International Standard) is the 
highest approval level at ISO, and requires a six month ballot. TS 
(Technical Specification) is easier to get approval for, and requires 
only a three month ballot. Once a specs is approved as a TS it can be 
later submitted for approval as an IS.

The ISO CS recommends TS because of the shorter ballot but also because 
it is easier to get approval.


Karl F. Best
Vice President, OASIS
+1 978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC