[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-lsc] Draft of message regarding eBTWG payload recommendations
Members of the UBL Liaison Subcommittee and invited observers, Attached is the first draft of the message to Patrick Gannon that the LSC asked me to create in yesterday's meeting. Comments, please. Jon ================================================================== ***To: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org ***CC: Jennifer.Hamilton@rosettanet.org, Jean.Kubler@unece.org Patrick, The OASIS UBL Liaison Subcommittee wishes to express its concern over the recent approval by the CEFACT Steering Group of the eBTWG statement regarding payload syntaxes to be used with the ebXML infrastructure. The eBTWG statement purports to identify "payloads that support adoption of the ebXML proposed standards" and specifically recommends the following four "industry recognized payloads" for use with ebXML: EAN.UCC XML Schemas Open Travel Alliance (OTA) Message Specifications Open Applications Group, Inc. (OAGI) Business Object Documents SWIFT (ISO 15022 XML) As you know, the UBL Liaison Subcommittee consists of liaisons appointed by several vertical and horizontal industry data standards associations, including ACORD (insurance), ARTS (retail sales), EIDX (electronics), XBRL (accounting), RosettaNet (IT), ASC X12, and the UN/EDIFACT Working Group. The LSC finds the eBTWG statement to be arbitrary, misleading, and unfair. Further, we fear that it may expose OASIS and UN/CEFACT to legal action on the part of commercial organizations damaged by the endorsement of competing technologies in a way that prejudices buyers against the use of their products. The eBTWG endorsement of four XML payloads "that support the adoption of the ebXML proposed standards" is misleading because it suggests that there are in existence other payloads that do not "support the adoption of the ebXML proposed standards." In fact, the ebXML framework was designed to work with any business data syntax whatsoever, including non-XML syntaxes, as is illustrated by the approval of UN/EDIFACT EDI syntax in the same document. Since it is impossible for any workable business syntax to not "support the adoption of the ebXML proposed standards," the naming of these four particular payload syntaxes from among the hundreds available as if they were technically better suited to the ebXML infrastructure is arbitrary and capricious. The fact that the ebXML products now beginning to appear on the market actually use RosettaNet and xCBL as their primary payloads shows the designation of these four others as somehow better suited for use with ebXML to be complete rubbish. Aside from being technically vacuous, the eBTWG endorsement of these particular payloads is unfair because it excludes a number of other equally suitable vertical and horizontal XML payload syntaxes that include at least two (RosettaNet and xCBL) whose representatives were actively involved in the work that created ebXML. It is obvious that no attempt was made on the part of the eBTWG to reach out to these stalwart supporters of the ebXML initiative or even to inform them that an approval list was being considered. The fact that the list excludes the very payload syntax that was used in the ebXML Proof of Concept demonstrates beyond question that the process by which the "recommended" specifications were chosen was entirely political. Beyond the manifest absurdity and lack of good faith shown by the eBTWG's attempt to label certain payloads as better than others, there is also the possibility that the designation of certain standards as recommended for use with ebXML may well expose OASIS and UN/CEFACT to legal action. While it is clear to anyone knowledgeable about ebXML that the endorsement of certain payload syntaxes is technically meaningless, this will not be the case for members of the general user community who may happen to encounter this drivel in mailing lists or press releases. On the contrary, this statement issuing forth under the banner of UN/CEFACT will strongly influence a large class of technology buyers, particularly government buyers, to make large-scale purchasing decisions that will cause direct and substantial financial harm to companies that have built fully compliant ebXML products that use payloads other than the four recommended by the eBTWG. In their zeal to pursue political objectives, the team that generated the document in question appears to have overlooked one of the most fundamental tenets of antitrust law as it relates to industrial standards, which is that standards must not be used to encourage any person or business entity to refrain from dealing with a particular supplier. The members of the UBL LSC are not lawyers, but the eBTWG's action represents a transgression of the basic principles of standards work so obvious and so egregious that we cannot but feel deep concern about the wisdom of its approval by UN/CEFACT, and while we understand that the ebXML Joint Coordination Committee did not approve the eBTWG statement, we fear that OASIS may be exposed to some of the fallout from this ill-conceived action simply by association. In light of these considerations, we request that you convey this expression of concern via the ebXML JCC to UN/CEFACT and that you seek clarification from OASIS counsel regarding the legal ramifications of recommending particular technologies for use with ebXML. We further recommend that this matter be brought to the attention of the UN office of legal affairs, which appears to be the responsible agency in matters pertaining to decisions of the CSG. Sincerely, Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL Liaison Subcommittee
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC