Re: [ubl-comment] UBL comments on ebXML Core Components TechnicalSpecification v1.8

[Todd Boyle <tboyle@rosehill.net>]

At 11:26 AM 4/30/02, Tim McGrath wrote:
>i was playing devil's advocate with my last remark, but i would like to 
>stop this discussion (without being too rude).
>
>Firstly, i agree with your remarks, but dont forget the formal process is 
>also the way for external groups to respond to the work of eBTWG 
>groups.  UBL is a separate constituency from eBTWG CCS and we see this 
>comment period as an opportunity to provide formal feedback to the CCTS 
>based on our practical experience in using CCTS 1.8 as the basis for our 
>XML vocabulary.
>.
>Secondly, the statements recently posted to this list are not UBL 
>'recommendations'.  This has been taken from a draft paper that is still 
>being debated within the UBL team (with as much vigour as expressed by 
>todd and others on this list).  This misrepresentation needs to be clarified.


I would like to formally apologise both for crossposting from UBL
to CCS, and for my mistake, calling it a recommendation,

I recognize your right to manage your content and at the same
time, I'm not sure what the implications are for my further reading
the UBL list.  It is kind of frustrating to have a list that formally,
requests me not to crosspost information that I think is of interest
to other groups.

Since I do that all the time it is hard to remember which
communities feel their content is quasi-private.  And as a
rule, I'm not interested in any consitituency different than
the constituency of Core Components which is, the whole
global community.  In fact, another rule of thumb about
newsgroups or lists that have special rules, is they usually peter
out pretty fast.  Nothing personal I'm just telling you what
I have learned in many years operating BBSs, moderating
usenet etc.et.c

Todd