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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-ndrsc message

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

Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Arofan's RT/CCT Draft Definitions

My version 0.1 recommendations (ccts-comments-ubl-0-1.doc) attempt to integrate my "properties" proposal with Arofan's "RT/CCT" one.  At least the proposed _metamodel_ is integrated (I left a placeholder for his prose -- to be added).  Arofan has agreed to look at that document and comment on the metamodel (does it reflect his proposal accurately).
Have you got the LCSC comments in a form that I can see, Tim?  If they aren't too onerous I could take a crack at integrating them in version 0.2.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:01 PM
To: Burcham, Bill
Cc: ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Arofan's RT/CCT Draft Definitions

These also cross over the comments the LCSC are submitting as well.  it may be smarter to co-ordinate with one set of UBL comments.

i am concerned we may give them mixed messages - when we should be clear on our position

Burcham, Bill wrote:
40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07344D36@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com type="cite">

I agree with just about everything Arofan says here right down to the very end where he makes the point about the terms being backward (that RT and CCT should properly be reversed).  It was informative to finally hear such a lucid explanation of the history behind these two constructs.  If we could get this sorted out to the satisfaction of UBL and CC folks this would be a huge step forward.

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC