[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Transition Statement
Dear All, it seems to me that the word document as distributed early this week is not, what was agreed in the Vienna discussion between Tim, Sue and me. Please find enclosed the version as it should be. Apparently, the sentence about the commitment to make UBL 2.0 to an ISO standard 15000-6 has not been removed, which is a mistake, I hope. Reasons: 1. ISO is an independent global standardization body and neither CEFACT nor OASIS can command, what ISO has to do. This issue is linked, but separate. 2. If UBL wants to see UBL 2.0 approved as an ISO standard, then the very first step for UBL is to talk with the U.S. Head of Delegation for ISO TC 154, and to make sure that the U.S. will support this. In other words, if CEFACT would be requested to do something, that the minimum is, that the U.S. stands behind and support. 3. ISO is rather approving methodologies than content, even if there are exceptions. It would be worth to discuss, where and when it is appropriate to standardize content, where all the maintenance work comes after and ISO would be in charge to do so, whereas the content submitter can easily disappear. 4. IMO there are no payload specs in ebXML 15000. As many of you know, I'm the Head of Delegation Germany for ISO TC 154. As such, I cannot agree with Transition statement as distributed in behalf of the above mentioned ad hoc team. Please understand, that I have to underline that the content of the distributed Transition statement does not express any official opinion of the German Delegation to ISO TC154. Best regards, Michael Dill Head of Delegation Germany for ISO TC 154 www.gefeg.com
Transition Statement_Draft_09AUG05_withmarkup.doc
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]