Re: [legalxml-enotary] Two items for consideration by eNotary TC

[Arshad Noor <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>]

Maybe this is something that OASIS pays for, John.  OASIS as
a whole, benefits from the "branding" with the eNotarized icon,
so this need not come from the LegalXML SC.

I don't believe this is something that will come from the 2008
budget.  Based on my recent experience with the EKMI Spec process,
even if I work on getting a DRAFT eNotary Specification based on
the XSD now, I can only commit to the spec being ready by the end
of September.  Since we haven't all agreed that the XSD is fine,
the spec is more than likely going to be a late October or mid-
November deliverable.  (This is still in-line with the projected
dates for this process, which was the end of 2008).

Assuming that we're all OK with the content of the spec, the 
earliest I see it going for Public Review would then be Jan 2009.
That puts us into March for the end of Public Review and then the
TC addresses comments, and finally the standards-vote.  So, while 
the XSD and the Specification can be ready befoer the end of 2008 
(as originally planned), the formal standard is more likely only 
by Spring 2009.

If we assume that we want the Conformance Test Tool and the Icons
to be available at the time the standard comes out, this needs to
be budgeted only for 2009.  And again, this is probably something
that the OASIS Board itself might pay for given the value and
visibility it brings to all of OASIS.

Arshad

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Messing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
To: "Arshad Noor" <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>
Cc: "laurent liscia" <laurent.liscia@oasis-open.org>, "James Bryce Clark" <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>, "Carol Geyer" <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>, "legalxml-enotary" <legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2008 11:49:57 AM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RE: [legalxml-enotary] Two items for consideration by eNotary TC

1. Who pays for it and out of what budget? If LegalXML, it must come
from the Steering Committee, and I am afraid that well may be dry for
eNotary at this point, given the allotments for this year.
2. LegalXML branding has been an issue that has spanned committees, and
I think this would again be a Steering Committee issue, and not one only
for the TC.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [legalxml-enotary] Two items for consideration by eNotary TC
> From: Arshad Noor <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>
> Date: Fri, August 01, 2008 9:34 am
> To: legalxml-enotary <legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Cc: laurent.liscia@oasis-open.org,  James Bryce Clark
> <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>,  Carol Geyer <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>
> 
> 
> Gentlemen (and Carol),
> 
> Thinking about the eNotary specification that we plan to put
> out this year for electronically notarized documents, and after
> some discussions with people on this topic, I believe there are
> two important items of work that this TC must contemplate
> producing along with the XML Schema Definition (XSD) standard.
> These are:
> 
> 1) A testing tool to test eNotarized documents for conformance
>    with the forthcoming OASIS standard; and
> 2) Visual representation marks for eNotarized documents that
>    are standardized across applications.
> 
> The first is critical to application developers - as well as 
> the courts - since there must be a single tool that can be
> referenced in the event there are disputes between two different
> implementations of software which deal with eNotarized documents
> and that produce different results.  The standard OASIS testing
> tool will allow developers to test their software implementations 
> for conformance with the TC's spec BEFORE they release their SW,
> thus ensuring that their software does not produce different 
> results for sample eNotarized documents.
> 
> The second is equally critical - but to end-users and relying
> parties who would appreciate a consistent representation of an
> eNotarized document across applications.  While software may have
> passed the conformance test in #1, if each vendor chooses to
> display the result of verifying an eNotarized document with its
> own icons/representations, it could lead to confusion in the
> industry despite the OASIS standard.
> 
> I would propose that this TC take up these two work-items and 
> create the conformance tool and visual icons so that the value 
> of the OASIS eNotary standard is not diluted.
> 
> To that extent I would also propose that, after the TC has come to 
> an agreement on these work-items, it put out RFP's for the creation
> of these artifacts.  The terms, ownership, licensing, etc. can all
> be worked out in conjunction with OASIS staff (who are copied on
> this e-mail for expediency).
> 
> I would also recommend that, while OASIS can make the conformance
> testing tool freely available to adopters, the visual icons should
> be restricted for use by only OASIS members, and only if they have 
> shown conformance with the tool through an independent testing 
> process.  Not only does this reinforce the value of an OASIS 
> membership, but it protects the "brand" of an OASIS-compliant 
> eNotarized document.  For end-users who will have to deal with 
> eNotarized documents in their software, seeing standardized icons 
> in a consistent manner within eNotarized documents will enhance the 
> value of the standard to the entire industry.
> 
> Thoughts/Reactions?
> 
> Arshad Noor
> StrongAuth, Inc.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php