AW: [tax] Groups - PPv1.07 (OASIS_XML_Position_Paper_for_Tax_Administrators_v1-07.doc) uploaded

["Liesen, Dr. Arndt (ext MA)" <arndt.liesen@bff.bund.de>]

Dear Andrew, 
thanks for again providing us that fast with another version of the position
paper.

I am not exactly sure that I could adhere to "not to revisit edits made in
Philadelphia unless it was critical", first as I  do not really know how to
recognize those, and then as the editing in Philadelphia was made by a
sub-group which I think  explicitly mentioned that it wanted the whole
committee to evaluate their result.



Lines 280-281: I feel that we should not restrict the appraisal of open
standards just to the understandibility of  documentation.  

While I like the content of 3.1 ("Why ... ") there may be an argument on the
relative length of this part compared to the  size of other parts. My
feeling is also that there is a certain amount of duplication (not in words
but in the goal of  words) with 3.2

In the sentence of line 380 that we discussed in the last cc the "but" still
does not seem logical to me. To provide many  options is more or less the
same as leaving flexibility. Why don't we simply omit the second part of the
sentence beginning  with "but". Together with the  following sentence (newly
inserted) that makes perfect sense. Or begin the first part with "As"   and
set "it" instead of "but"?

Line 406: "recommending the use of" instead of "using"? (The Committee may
use these standards, but this is obviously not  meant here.)

Line 415: I am a bit confused by the last sentence. The table does not only
list the containers, which are clearly defined  in the diagram. Should we
say "The components of the diagram are listed ..."?

Spelling: Am I correct that while "XML Schema" is the spelling of the title
of the W3C "standard" (not the plural form as  currently in the glossary),
we should write "XML schema" whenever we want to talk about a specific XML
schema that we run  across? - That would mean to return to the former
spelling in line 546 (possibly others).

With regard to Harm Jan's question in line 541: would it help to put bold
letters as follows: *s*tandardised formats and  procedures for *e*xchange of
*i*nformation in *t*axation  ?

I do not agree with the sentence concerning STF: "In the current version it
lacks descriptive labelling so it can only be  used in a controlled
environment."  - lines 546-548. I am not sure if I understand well the term
"descriptive labelling",  but if it means that there is no description of
the intended meaning of the elements then I want to point out that the STF
schema contains plenty of annotation regarding the semantics of types and
elements, and there is also a tool to extract  these annotations to present
them to the user, and there is an extensive guide how to use STF.

I would like to put together Harm-Jan's words and my own for lines 551 as
follows: "The Committee recognises that STF  within its scope fulfils the
business need for efficient and effective communications between tax
administrations in a  controlled environment. However, The Committee
recommends that STF in order to extend its usefulness migrate to the use of
open standards components as soon as these are adequately accepted."  I do
not see the necessity of STF becoming an "open  standard" itself (in case it
should lack anything from the definition of an open standard in the
glossary), as it is not  intended for use by others than the tax
administrations themselves. However, there will certainly be value in using
components that are also being used in the administrations' exchanges with
business and these should hopefully be the same  as those used between
enterprises. That is what I would like to be expressed and this would also
go well with the text of  lines 120-126.

Regards
Arndt Liesen

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: awebber@wwwebbers.com [mailto:awebber@wwwebbers.com] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. August 2005 22:29
An: tax@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: andrew.webber@ccra-adrc.gc.ca
Betreff: [tax] Groups - PPv1.07
(OASIS_XML_Position_Paper_for_Tax_Administrators_v1-07.doc) uploaded


A Position Paper telecon was held 2005-08-05 @ 1600ET.  The discussion was
very productive, thanks to those who were able to attend, and to those who
contributed to the document.

v1.07 incorporates decisions taken at the telecon, during which participants
reviewed from document start to the end of section 3.  It was decided not to
revisit edits made in Philadelphia unless it was critical, and to bypass the
Executive Summary until the document's body is complete
(exception: to move "History of the Committee" from Executive Summary to
Introduction).  There are some significant issues to resolve within the
Executive Summary and it is anticipated that some will be resolved while
finalizing the body.

To be consistent with earlier edits, I have made these changes as the user
"Telecon of 2005-08-05" (initials "TC").  I've also accepted as many of the
purely-editing changes (e.g. punctuation) as I can.

Another telecon will be scheduled as soon as possible to continue the
discussion.  Any comments on v1.07 in advance of the discussion should be
sent to the list if possible.  My goal is to distribute v1.08 (if
necessary) at least 24 hours before the next telecon.

Thanks!
=andrew


 -- Andrew Webber

The document named PPv1.07
(OASIS_XML_Position_Paper_for_Tax_Administrators_v1-07.doc) has been
submitted by Andrew Webber to the OASIS Tax XML TC document repository.

Document Description:
Position Paper v1.07 incorporates decisions taken at the telecon held
2005-08-05 @ 1600ET.

View Document Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tax/document.php?document_id=13
949

Download Document:  
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tax/download.php/13949/OASIS_XM
L_Position_Paper_for_Tax_Administrators_v1-07.doc


PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email application
may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and paste
the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.

-OASIS Open Administration