RE: [ubl] Re: new work item for UBL

[<MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

> Also I've realized that Microsoft and IBM are looking from 
> their point of view for the benefits of 'global' solutions, 
> too. At least, this is what I understand from the discussions 
> about the talks about the convergence of OAGI to become CCTS 
> compliant.

Beyond IBM, Microsoft, and OAGI, many others are also going forward with
a global approach. Other reasons that we didn't even consider when we
made our decision seem to be validating the UBL vice CEFACT approach.
For example, there is an interesting post from Michael Kay on Schema-Dev
- "When you eventually come to write schema-aware queries or
stylesheets, you'll find that it's a good idea to make most of your
elements global."


> The attempt to merge UBL with CEFACT will have to offer a 
> solution for both (global/local; cc level).

This will be an agenda item at the ATG F2F next month in Norway.  As a
reminder to all UBL participants, UN/CEFACT ATG doesn't have any
restrictions on participation at ATG meetings.  If interested in
attending the ATG F2F, drop me a line and I will get you the meeting
specifics.

Mark