Re: [regrep] Web Site update request

[Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>]

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

>I have the following concerns with posting the Case Study paper on our
>site:
>
>(1) The paper is not an OASIS product, yet it uses the OASIS and ebXML
>logos and format. It is also listed as being copyright OASIS, which is
>incorrect (at an extreme, it can be considered fraud - not accusing
>anyone of that though).
>  
>
mm1: The paper was submitted as you see by the LoMakeFi project (OASIS 
did not complete this case study).  We have also opted with other case 
studies to provide a copyright if the originator requested it (such as 
for Apelon with SAGE project).

If you note the work submission, the project team is going to donate 
their work to ebxmlrr or into the Reg/Rep effort.

I would suggest you get more information prior to inferring what you 
indicated above which raises undue concerns or confusion.

>(2) The paper describes approaches to implementation of Core Components
>in ebXML registry that are not necessarily in line with the approaches
>that we will be proposing as part of the Technical Note (in fact I can
>tell you that there are contridictions). As Chair of the Core Components
>Review Subcommittee, I request that this paper not be listed on our
>site.
>  
>
mm1: Whether or not it follows the recommendations of ebXML Reg/Rep 
should not devalue the work that was done nor its relevance as a 
Registry/Repository implementation. If you used this entrance criteria, 
many projects could not be communicated to the community.

>Respectfully,
>Joe
>  
>