ubl-comment message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-comment] Copyrights, standards and trash talk (was) UN/CEFACT:consultation process for new organization
- From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>
- To: MCRAWFORD@lmi.org, ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:03:21 -0800
At 06:37 AM 1/18/02, CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
*
** why is OASIS working hard to preserve the ebXML brand on their TC
work, to include standing up their part of the bargain to form the ebXML
management committee and continuing to promote ebXML, while the eBTWG is
removing references to ebXML * * * I thought the agreement was that the
architecture group would be joint, and that the ebXML Coordinating
Committee would harmonize the work * * *
ebXML was and is a good piece of work, and a high water mark for
intergovernmental and intervendor cooperation in its area.
Some recent discussions about it have been unnecessarily
contentious. The leadership of the affected groups are trying to
find ways to cooperate, in spite of several difficulties.
There has been too much trash talk, and not enough clarity, in these
discussions. Here, in my own view as a participant who
attempts to remain neutral, is where we are.
= The May 2001 arrangements for continuing the
ebXML work were not executed in a careful or open manner.
Participants seemed animated by private agendas, to the detriment of the
work plan. The result was an suboptimal but workable structure
declared in a significantly inadequate fashion. Subsequent stumbles
suggest that both relevant MoUs were poorly negotiated and poorly
drafted. This was disappointing, but is a recoverable
situation. I do not care to discuss the details publicly right now,
because I believe that good faith efforts are underway to
improve the situation, without unnecessary embarrassment or
finger-pointing, and I expect those efforts to result in clear and
helpful public discussions shortly.
= The leadership of both groups have been
trying to promote coordination in good faith, though at times slowly or
unevenly. There is too much turfsmanship, and too little attention
to process architecture. Nevertheless, the actual work has been
progressing on all fronts in a spirit of cooperation and interoperation.
One example is the continuing and completely voluntary efforts
of the (CEFACT) BPSS and (OASIS) CPPA teams to remain in sync in their
tightly related models. Another is the (OASIS) UBL white paper,
which frames its planned work product within the OO-edi and ebXML layers
consistent with anticipated extensions of the (CEFACT) business
model. These are cheerful evidence that most of our technical
participants are on the right page, regardless of occasional management
lapses.
= The ownership, copyright and forward
control of the work product is significant and sensitive.
Intelligent adopters will not use any of this work if it is tied
up in fractious disputes over ownership or access, inadequately
reconciled requirements, or obstacles to fair participation in future
versioning. We are all groping towards an optimal model.
Disagreements about private versus public control, and financial control,
are inevitable. So are attempts to dominate the process. As a
community, we have not solved this yet. Mark, your suggestion that
all of the problems lie with CEFACT, and none with OASIS, is neither
accurate or helpful.
All of the obstacles described above are merely politic, and do
not impeach the technical work. Also, they are all
resolvable, if addressed in good faith in a fair and transparent
manner. If we failed to solve the political issues, the work is
compelling enough that I suspect a critical mass of experts would
reconvene elsewhere and continue. (Incidentally, the same
thing happened to most of my keggers in high school. Eventually the
police came, so we drove to another park, procured more beer, and resumed
the proceedings.) So a solution of the current standards
group structure issues is desirable, but not absolutely essential.
However, the work itself is essential, as is our spirit of
cooperation. If we dissolve into contentious factions, we cede the
domain to a thousand competing proprietary forays, years of absurd patent
claims, and an unworkable Babel. This is a sufficiently bad outcome
that it should inspire all to cooperate.
Jamie Clark
~ James Bryce Clark
~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.
~ Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce
~ 1 818 597 9475 jamie.clark@mmiec.com
jbc@lawyer.com
~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature. Ask
me why.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC