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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION: SOA-RM formal consideration of comments submitted to JTC 1


We should not be caught between a rock and a hard place here.


As regards process,

The N780 document is a restricted access document (only available to JTC 1 and SC38 members and liaisons) and yet we are being asked to have the OASIS TC consider and adjudicate on comments that the committee actually has no right to see. As the OASIS TC cannot “officially” look at the SC38 documents, because of IP, copyright and other, legitimate, concerns, the TC has to trust its duly nominated liaisons to perform due diligence and report to the TC its findings about a particular work in progress. I think that you have done this admirably well.


I do not think that you should – or can – distribute JTC 1 “N” documents that are not publicly accessible. We hide nothing away in OASIS but then we have a different business and operational model to JTC 1. Whether we like it or not, we have to respect that. I know that you submitted that in good faith together with your comments as part of our (OASIS) commitment to transparency but we shouldn’t get in to deeper water by so doing…


I think Chet is right when he said that – although there are no provisions in the TC process that require a TC to consider and approve comments on works of another organization – we should attempt to handle them in the same spirit as we would our own works (notwithstanding the foregoing, that the JTC 1 source document is not strictly available to us all). I actually think that you have gone “above and beyond” in doing that, short of having a formally minuted record of the TC having adjudicated and approved all the comments – again, against a document that we cannot see. As a TC member, I would not vote on approving comments to a text that I am not allowed to see.


Most of all, there has to be a high degree of trust and mutual respect. OASIS, TOG, IEEE, SC38, others, all have valuable contributions to make in this space. Bluntly stated, this is not a pissing contest. We all get involved in this sort of work because we feel that it is important and that things need to be stated not because we have some evil agenda to get one over on someone else. If that is how some others choose to operate, that is their issue, not ours.


As regards the substance,

This TC has accumulated an immense body of knowledge and expertise over the years. Many have chosen to leverage it in their own work and organizations; others have chosen to ignore it and hope that it goes away.

If the TC liaisons have made 300+ comments on a document, that itself should be a sign that something needs to be addressed.

When faced with a similar challenge two years ago in the OASIS TC, that meant painstakingly revisiting whole chunks of text and even some basic assumptions. We took that on and the work (the SOA-RAF) is much better as a result.

I fail to understand why anyone in SC38 would not want to see their own work subject to the same diligence and vigilance. It won’t kill it and it will make it stronger. However, again as stated elsewhere, the SC38 work “selectively and inconsistently references” OASIS documents and we have a duty of care to ensure this does not continue and that our properties are also defended from unfair or inaccurate referencing.


In summary, if the reaction of some of the sponsors of the texts being considered by SC38 is to complain rather than address those concerns, then that is their choice. But it must be made clear to them that this is their conscious choice to ignore advice and comment that others have taken considerable efforts to assemble. Nobody does it for fun. There is something seriously broken in the JTC 1 process if it cannot take criticism as being constructive comment for the benefit of strengthening a draft that is intended to be a global standard.


I do not wish to see the minutae of procedural rules, wherever they come from, trump good practice and due diligence.


Best regards,



From: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ken Laskey
Sent: Friday, 15 March, 2013 12:02
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION: SOA-RM formal consideration of comments submitted to JTC 1
Importance: High


As we have discussed at numerous past meetings:
- Peter and I have been accredited as OASIS Liaisons to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38.
- The Open Group Reference Architecture (TOG RA) and their SOA Ontology are the basis of development efforts in SC38 WG2.
- I have noted during our meetings that I was doing a careful review of the current WG2 drafts (and those of you with a history on this OASIS TC know what to expect when I do a careful review).
- I have noted other resources I was going to call on for the SOA Ontology review and invited others on this committee to provide comments to any of the three documents out for review.

I have shared my comments privately with several of you, but I had previously avoided distributing the WG2 documents on our public mailing list because I was not sure if that was appropriate for another organization's material.

During last week's IEEE SOA RA call, Heather Kreger mentioned that there were ~600 submitted comments, of which ~300 were submitted by/through me.  Today I learned that Dave Ings of IBM contacted Laurent Liscia with a "request that the comments be withdrawn until they have been reviewed, approved and minuted by the appropriate TC(s)."  I was not included in the ensuing discussion until today.

At this point, it is unclear what will follow.  I have suggested we offer a discussion with the IBM folks to decide what mutually acceptable actions can be pursued to efficiently deal with the submitted comments.  I do not know whether such a discussion will happen.

In any case, I would like to give this committee the opportunity to formally consider the submitted comments and determine if there is a consensus on whether the committee would like the comments to proceed for WG2 adjudication or whether they should be withdrawn.

To that end, I am attaching the three WG2 documents and the three sets of comments that I submitted.  Please begin to familiarize yourself with this material in the event that we need to have a discussion and, as appropriate, a vote on the sense of the committee in this matter.


Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305             phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                             fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]