Re: [regrep] Web Site update request

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

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

><Quote>
>I would suggest you get more information prior to inferring what you 
>indicated above which raises undue concerns or confusion.
></Quote>
>
>Monica: First of all, I would like a public apology for your completely
>unprofessional behavior and false accusation.
>  
>
mm1: The comment was related to:

Your comment: "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)."

This project completed the template provided by the ebXML Joint 
Marketing Team.  I am sorry you consider my raising the concern about 
your statement to be unprofessional.  Any such statement could lead to 
confusion and be misinterpreted. I am unclear what is unprofessional 
here, although if you wish to discuss it further please elaborate or 
contact me privately.

Although I can not speak for LoMakeFi, I do believe they intend to 
provide the API as open source and it was reported last week  in the NII 
Conference in Taipei that it would be donated (and this is indicated in 
the case study report).

I would be happy to ask the originators of this case study if they 
require any copyright on this, as that was not originally requested.  
Both Mark Crawford and I (and Mark very directly) coordinated with the 
LoMakeFi team to get the case study finished and presented at a brief in 
Taipei last week. The project team was also very keen to have it 
published as soon as possible on www.ebxml.org.  If you have concerns 
about its conflict with the cc-regrep-review work, perhaps a balanced 
compromise would be to have a link from www.ebxml.org once the case 
study is published.

>Second of all, the Abstract says the following:
>
>"Republica's LomakeFi Form Assembler tool is one of the results of a
>project that aimed to produce electronic forms for the Finnish
>Government based on existing paper forms. It uses the ebXML Core
>Component approach to define the form parts and relies on ebXML Registry
>to store information about these parts. This case study presents this
>tool, the registry-based environment behind it and the work developed by
>Republica Ltd for this project."
>
>The word "donate" does not even appear anywhere in the document.
>  
>
mm1: See comments above.  The case study also indicates one of its next 
steps is to more so closely align with the evolving cc-regrep-review 
work.  Thank you.

>Third of all, I have no idea what LomakeFI is, so I could not have been
>aware of anything that your speaking of.
>
>Joe
>
>Monica Martin wrote:
>  
>
>>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
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>
>>