Re: [regrep] [Fwd: [regrep-semantic] IBM BI-ICS]

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

+1 on the instability points. Examples that I like to point to are DIME
and WS-Attachments - which are no longer supported by Microsoft and are
reported as being superceded by MTOM[1], and WS-Routing whose features
were reported at one time to be incorporated into WS-ReliableMessaging,
but are now reported to be out of scope[2]. I have a *hunch* that if
these specifications (meaning DIME and WS-Routing) were in an open
standards consortium such as OASIS or W3C, their stability would be more
assured.

Joe

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-mtom-20040209/
[2] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-03-11-a.html
(search on "Routing)

Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> 
> Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> 
> > For the most part I prefer to reference standards works as opposed to
> > private works, but I make exception for some things -- especially when
> > they provide essential functionality AND when they contain an open
> > copyright notice. Such is the case with WS-Addressing.
> >
> > WS-Addressing provides essential functionality -- a standard mechanism
> > to reference a Web service endpoint. In my opinion, it's one of the
> > most critical WS specifications published last year. I am not aware of
> > any competitive effort that is currently defining this type of mechanism.
> >
> > And I suggest you read the copyright notice [1]. It the most open spec
> > notice I've ever seen.
> >
> > [1]
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/ws-addressing.asp
> >
> >
> > Anne
> 
> Anne,
> 
> I do not see how you call it the most open spec notice you've
> ever seen. Nowadays copyright notices as pretty open (except in the
> music industry
> of course ;)) It's when it comes to patent claims and licenses that
> things get
> sticky.
> 
> On surface this one seems ok there are some disturbing aspects
> there that should be taken into account. First of all, this same spec,
> same version, same date (13 March 2003) used to carry a very different
> notice
> (and I have a PDF copy that I downloaded from one of their sites in mid
> 2003 that
> proves it). The notice in that version said and I quote:
> 
> "EXCEPT FOR THE COPYRIGHT LICENSE GRANTED ABOVE, THE AUTHORS DO NOT
> GRANT, EITHER
> EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, A LICENSE TO ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
> INCLUDING PATENTS,
> THEY OWN OR CONTROL."
> 
> So yes, they changed above notice to a much better one, no doubt,
> (although I would
> really like to know what "commercially reasonable terms and conditions"
> means
> and why it replaces the much more common "reasonable and
> non-discriminatory terms",
> and why you consider it so amazingly open. It seems that this language
> still
> allows them to reserve the right to impose discriminatory terms. Do not
> you agree?
> 
> What is most disturbing is that the specification was changed in the
> middle of the night,
> as it were, with no notice, no versioning and no date change;
> 
> *This* is precisely one of the main problems with these type of
> specifications that masquerade as pseudo-standards: their authors can
> change them at a
> moment's notice and they don't have to tell anybody. There is no
> accountability.
> There is no control.
> 
> Oh, and let's not forget that WS-Addressing has a normative reference to
> WS-Policy,
> which last time I checked, still carried that no-grant notice either.
> But wait....
> maybe they changed it since I last looked. Let me check...
> 
> Indeed it still says:
> 
> "EXCEPT FOR THE COPYRIGHT LICENSE GRANTED ABOVE, THE AUTHORS DO NOT
> GRANT, EITHER
> EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, A LICENSE TO ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
> INCLUDING PATENTS,
> THEY OWN OR CONTROL."
> 
> So the notice is still there, but who knows what else has changed since
> last time we
> looked at it? And who knows what might change tonight?
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.