[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] NDR Specification
+1 On 01/03/2005 06:35 AM, Mavis Cournane wrote: > Mark > I entirely agree with your motion and second it. In our disposition of > comments for the NDR Spec in October we addressed the concerns raised by > those casting no votes. What we said back then is still applicable now > and there is nothing further to add in my opinion. > > Happy New Year to all. > > Regards > Mavis Cournane > On 3 Jan 2005, at 12:07, <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org> wrote: > > Greetings, > > We received more than sufficient yes votes to pass the NDR > specification. We did receive two no votes (it appears there is a > problem with the vote archive page as it indicates a total of 3 no > votes but one had been withdrawn and only two remain). The OASIS > processes states: > > > "If at the end of the voting period at least 15 percent of the > voting membership has voted to approve the proposed standard, then > if no votes have been cast to disapprove the proposed standard, it > shall become an OASIS Standard immediately following the end of the > voting period. However, if negative votes amounting to less than 15 > percent of the voting membership have been cast, the TC will be > notified of the negative votes, after which the TC shall have 30 > days to take one of the following actions by resolution: (a) request > OASIS TC Administration to approve the specification as submitted > despite the negative votes; (b) withdraw the submission entirely; or > (c) submit an amended specification, in which case the amended > submission shall be considered as if it were a new submission, > except that information regarding previous votes and any disposition > of comments received in previous votes shall accompany the amended > submission." > > > > Our "no" votes and their justification are: > > BEA Systems: > > ?BEA Systems votes no on UBL Naming and Design Rules v1.0 as an > OASIS Standard. BEA commented during the public review that we > believe that distributed extensibility and versioning is a key > architectural component of distributed systems and UBL should allow > for distributed extensibility [1]. The UBL TC responded to the > effect that exchanging business documents where one side did not > have the extension schema - what we have called distributed > compatible extensibility - is not in business interests because both > sides must understand any extensions for continued exchange. We > believe that this requirement - that all parties in an exchange must > simultaneously deploy new schemas and semantic understanding - is > too onerous for business scenarios. There is a long history of > compatible evolution of business documents that could be formalized > and fostered by UBL. We are very concerned that this design will > lead to very tightly coupled and brittle business systems. We are > also concerned that this specification will act as an undesirable > model for other specifications." > > SAP > > "SAP believes that the "Garden of Eden" approach used in UBL NDR, > i.e. to use global element definitions only, is hard to implement > and to maintain. The more flexible "Venetian Blind" approach, i.e. > to allow local element definitions where appropriate, should be used > instead." > > > These comments are virtually identical to those submitted by these > two organizations during the first review period in October. We > addressed both of these comments at our Face 2 Face Meeting in > November. Both are opinions on how best to use XML and XSD - rather > than technical arguments that invalidate the UBL NDR approach. > I would like to make a motion that we recommend to OASIS TC > Administration that the NDR become an OASIS standard forthwith and > would ask Jon to initiate the most expeditious TC process available > to seek consensus within the TC on my motion. > > > */Mark/* > *Mark R. Crawford* > *Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead* > *W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative* > *Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC * > *Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group* > *Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components* > > <image.tiff>* * > *LMI Government Consulting* > *2000 Corporate Ridge* > *McLean, VA 22102-7805* > *703.917.7177 Phone* > *703.655.4810 Wireless* > */The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater. /* > > */www.lmi.org/ * > > -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM Corporate Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 (internal x31442) Sun Microsystems Inc. | W3C AC Rep / W3C AB / OASIS BoD
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]