[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Web Site update request
<Quote1> 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. </Quote1> That does not change my stand, which is that we should not publish anything that contradicts the work that is currently being done (whether here or on ebXML.org). I will take this issue up further with Kathryn privately. They document also states: "The model has been shared with the OASIS community through the Registry TC and has served as one of the starting points for the cc-review sub-committee under that TC." This is completely incorrect - the model was never considered to be a starting point for our work. <Quote2> Your comment: "It is also listed as being copyright OASIS, </Quote2> I honestly don't see why this is not a black-and-white issue. My question is: should this be copyright OASIS? My assumption is no, as it was not developed under OASIS. I really don't understand why there is any ambiguity here. I would recommend that we defer this issue to Kathryn to take up with Karl Best et al. Monica Martin wrote: > > 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]