OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[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reported as being superceded by MTOM[1], and WS-Routing whose features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]