RE: [oic] deliverable "state of interoperability"

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Rob, thanks.

Just for clarification, I did not mean to discount information from vendors
about what they are learning the interoperability issues are, especially
from user feedback.  I was thinking more about how vendors might be
reluctant to disclose that kind of information because of competitive
concerns, and because of that we should not consider that a sole source or
even a preferred source.  (A giant contribution of producers would be some
sort of consistent implementation profiles.  That would be huge.)

I think we should welcome grounded information from all sources.

 - Dennis



-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oic/200901/msg00034.html
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:23
To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [oic] deliverable "state of interoperability"

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/20/2009 
11:42:52 AM:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oic/200901/msg00033.html
[ ... ]
> Vendors might have information they can share in regard to what comes in 
as
> hot spots from adopters of their products, but we should not depend on 
that
> as a sole source. 
> 

Well, where a vendor is also a deployer, that then becomes a valid data 
point, equally as valid as any other deployer.  I certainly wouldn't 
disregard an ODF deployer's views simply because they happen to also be a 
vendor.

[ ... ]