[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] NEW POLICY PRODUCT TYPE
Here’s what I’ve now loaded onto the Wiki Matrix. If anyone wants any changes please let me know, and if anybody has a non-UK example of the software re-use reference let me have it and I’ll substitute it for what’s there at present. John From: Steve Mutkoski (LCA) [mailto:Steve.Mutkoski@microsoft.com] Sorry to be late to the conversation… I agree with much of the sentiment expressed here, I certainly wouldn’t want to use a reference that highlighted only Microsoft, since we are hardly the only vendor that has embraced this approach to reuse of licensed assets (as David pointed out on another thread, Oracle has done the same). I’m also tempted to say we should look for a reference other than the UK, since I think there is a bit of marketing in what we’re seeing in these current announcements (the reality is that many of the underlying agreements on this issue were made long ago), but if we can only find something in the UK then lets just go with that for a starting point. There are actually a few dimensions to reuse and portability that we might want to call out: (1) Contracting for reusability= what we have discussed around licensing, ensuring govt entities are smart at the contracting phase to ensure they can move and reuse assets (2) Designed for reusability= this mainly applies to purpose built systems or applications, and is based on the premise that access to source code alone is not enough and instead it is critical that the asset is built with well documented interfaces (formal standards or otherwise); I think one example of this might be PEPPOL (sp?) which is the cross EU e-invoicing system (3) Maintenance and reusability= mechanisms for shared maintenance costs (pooling together as many users as possible results in lower maintenance costs) Steve From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sorry Colin, since I sent out my note I’ve found the official notice on the Cabinet Office website and I would use that. But just to emphasise it’s not just MS that is involved in these new agreements. They’ve done the same with SAP, Oracle and others so it does show a strategic approach to all major software suppliers. John From: Colin Wallis [mailto:Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz] I’m supportive of a link to the initiative, but would prefer it if we could find a more official government sourced one. I think using a news link like this is a departure from past links we have published (from memory, which admittedly may not serve me well here..). I am also a bit worried about external perceptions of the TC’s work being self serving (for MS’s sake, as much as OASIS’s and this TC’s). But if we really can’t find a government press release on it or anything well, OK I guess...we’ll take the risk..but understand that we have one. Cheers Colin From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Greenaway Nigel Hi John, I support including a reference to this in the cell entry. As well as the cost benefit, it demonstrates inclusivity/the ability of smaller government organisations to deal with large suppliers as a result of a whole-of-government approach. Regards Nig Nig Greenaway Public Sector FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7302 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras A very good example of our new Policy Product Type being put into practice. This is exactly what Steve has been talking about as part of this new Type but should we include this in the matrix cell entry? John
==== |
Attachment:
New Policy Product Type.rtf
Description: MS-Word document
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]