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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

Mail Index message

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

Subject: Re: [ubl-fssc] Formal proposal for subcommittee (fwd)

At 2003-03-11 11:03 +0800, Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
>I'm supposed to lurk but between lurking and being urged to
>speak up asap comes the following comments.

Which are always welcome!

>giving you a view from someone who just read the charter
>and the impression he gets.  This may be a view from the
>many people whom you will approach later as well when they
>take a first look at it and derive conclusions from it.

I appreciate that you've taken time to share your views on the charter ... 
as I said, I'm not the only voice and we should be getting comments from 
other members of the list regarding your comments.

> >>>Suggest adding "international" before "standardization",
> >>
> >>I'd like to keep the door open to any standardization organization, not
> >>just international ... who knows who might get interested in this,
> >>especially since we are trying to make it available world-wide?  There may
> >>be a national body organization somewhere who recognizes and embraces our
> >>work and offers some input.
>I thought I was trying to help allay impressions about this
>being a U.S.-originated SC,

Ummmmmmm ... I'm Canadian and the chair of LCSC is Australian and the OASIS 
group is working with the United Nations; on our committee Sue is from 
England and Gunther is from Germany ... now Dan happens to be from the U.S. 
but I think it might be unfair to call this a U.S.-originated SC.

>I understand so far that some SCs are for doing the bulk specs
>work, while some are on the softer, political aspects.  I thought
>FPSC would be the former actually as I thought it appeared appropriate
>to address the link between UBL document specs with the available
>presentation technologies, as well as paper-based presentation
>details.  Maybe that's in as well but your emphasis is on the
>political aspects.  That's fine.

I hope you are comfortable with the wording ... all development involves 
some politics, and yes our main objective is to produce formal 
specifications, but our success in doing so is predicated on our open 
liaison and work with national bodies and international organizations 
interested in paper forms.

>Sorry, my england not as good as yours.  I just thought simpler
>words conveying the point might be better.  But again, it's just
>phrasing opinion and fine if you so deem fit.

Can you recommend simpler phrasing?  Have I successfully conveyed the 
objective of the group is to produce standards that are not biased to any 
given implementation technology?

>I'm still not clear how "UBL documents suitable for the human
>reader"   "emphasizes the reason we exist" and how it "distinguishes
>our efforts from .. other UBL committees";  sorry, but this
>particular link doesn't stand out readily to me.  But that's
>just me.  I'll go along if you deem fit.

Well, let me try again.  My understanding of all of the other UBL 
subcommittees is their focus is on machine-to-machine communication 
ensuring applications successfully convey the desired meanings of 
electronic commerce through an exchange of adopted message formats.

Looking at http://oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/charter/ubl.htm there is no 
mention of the presentation of business documents.  We are adding something 
new and very distinct to UBL with this subcommittee in that we are 
involving the human for both presentation and input of the XML documents 
described in the UBL charter.

Looking at the NDRSC and LCSC groups as well, there are no efforts to 
undertake what we are undertaking here.

What would you recommend be said to bring this unique perspective of ours 
to the UBL project to light to the reader?

>By "burying" these e.g. items under "Scope of Work", I thought,
>there's more leeway in choice of direction.  But, again, it's
>just what I thought;  your kind self and others may differ.

I think we are safe making them but examples of what might be included thus 
not necessitating a review of the scope of work.  Can you recommend wording 
that would give the reader the essence of the scope of work in the charter 
paragraph without leaving the impression of a definitive list of tasks?

>"Buried" was just to say that the activities could be carried
>out as SC activities anyway with or without "in order to test"
>being stated.  But when "in order to test" is stated as a
>charter description, one (or at least I) might wonder some of
>those expectations that I mentioned earlier associated with
>test results, test tools, etc are to be expected as outcome
>of SC.

Granted ... can you recommend wording to convey that it is the efficacy of 
the output work products being tested and not anything else?

> >>But these are only my personal perspectives on your suggestions, Chin; I
> >>will await others to post their suggestions before making any changes to
> >>the draft.
>Thanks.  I like to say that I'm just providing opinions and
>first-impression feedbacks, not necessarily asking for a change.
>Such feedbacks are what I thought would be valuable to you
>to go forward.

Indeed they are very valuable, and I look forward to comments from other 
list members to your suggestions.

>   So there you go.  I'm going back to lurking.
>See you on the bright side.

Oh, I don't think you'll be able to hide that easily, Chin ... I won't be 
too shy to pull you in for a task when we need your expertise and your 
perspective.  I look forward to your contribution to the success of this 

Please let me know if you have new suggestions for wording based on both 
your original suggestions and my comments regarding them.

Other members, please let us know your opinions!

................... Ken

Upcoming hands-on in-depth XSLT/XPath and/or XSL-FO
                              North America:      June 16-20, 2003

G. Ken Holman                mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.         http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0   +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
ISBN 0-13-065196-6                      Definitive XSLT and XPath
ISBN 0-13-140374-5                              Definitive XSL-FO
ISBN 1-894049-08-X  Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
ISBN 1-894049-10-1              Practical Formatting Using XSL-FO
Male Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc

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

Powered by ezmlm-idx