Conformance to CCTS

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Team,

I am planning to draft an e-mail to Kathryn very shortly regarding the
legal aspects of our level of conformance to the CCTS spec. As we have
seen, there are various requirements in the current CCTS spec that we
cannot conform with because such conformance does not make sense in
light of our registry architecture.

Having been informed of the feedback to the UN/CEFACT CCTS Team from at
least one other group, it appears to me that some additional updates may
take place to the current CCTS spec before it reaches final approval. If
so, this would delay our implementation of what I consider to be a
long-needed and critical feature of our architecture. We may not want to
delay this feature any longer.

Page 10 of the CCTS spec states, regarding conformance:

4.3 Conformance

Applications will be considered to be in full conformance with this
technical specification if they comply with the content of normative
sections, rules and definitions.

[A1] Conformance shall be determined through adherence to the content of
normative sections, rules and definitions.

As per our analysis of the CCTS spec against our registry architecture,
we will not be in full conformance with the CCTS spec. This leaves
several options:

(1) Notify the CCTS Team of those places where we will not be in
conformance (we will do this), and have the CCTS Team update their spec
accordingly;

MY THOUGHTS: The CCTS Team is under no obligation to do so, any more
than we are under an obligation to be 100% conformant with their spec.

(2) Notify the CCTS Team of those places where we will not be in
conformance, and assume that they may/may not update their spec
accordingly; we will call our Technical Note "Implementing UN/CEFACT
ebXML Core Components in an ebXML Registry";

MY THOUGHTS: Since the CCTS spec is copywritten, can we call our 
Technical Note "Implementing UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components in an ebXML
Registry" if we are not in 100% conformance?

(3) Notify the CCTS Team of those places where we will not be in
conformance, and assume that they may/may not update their spec
accordingly; we will not use the term "UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components"
in the title of our Technical Note, but will instead call something like
"Component-Level Registration and Reuse in an ebXML Registry". We will
state that our work is *based on* the UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components
specification.

MY THOUGHTS: Not sure of the legal ramifications of this, since the CCTS
spec is copywritten.

I plan to request on Wed. that Kathryn raise this to the proper OASIS
folks so that it may be investigated from the legal side. In the
meantime, any feedback you would like to give is welcome and
appreciated.

Thanks!
Joe
begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard