[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] [Fwd: [regrep-semantic] IBM BI-ICS]
Yes - a well-defined, *open* governance process that is all-inclusive (to the greatest degree possible). Joe Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > >+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reported as being superceded by MTOM[1], and WS-Routing whose features 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. > > > > > Instability of "specifications that masquerade as pseudo-standards" > (SMPS - pronouncd SIMPS?) > is another good point but not the one I was emphasizing.... > > The main point I was making is that the process is not transparent with > these SMPS. > > Changes are slipped in without notifying the public, based upon > decisions made by > parties colluding behind closed doors. Such changes, decisions and the > motives behind them will typically never be known to the general public. > > -- > Regards, > Farrukh > > >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. > >> > >> > > > >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. > > > > > > > > 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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]