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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

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

Subject: RE: [ubl] Transition Statement

Dear all,

I will not start debating the issues on the relationship between the groups nor the policy involved. I will even agree to that ISO can decide whatever they want to standardise.

But if the purpose of UBL is having ISO and 154 accepting the payload being developed in UBL - or if that was the case for any other group - as official standards, part of 15000 or not, I will fight against that as much as I can. It contravene a longstanding and very sensible principle, to which there can be raised a huge amount of arguments in support, that payloads are not being officially standardised.

I am quiet frankly surprised Jon, that you will even raise that. The only time I can remember that was done was early 90īs in CEN and it failed horribly!

I do hope that UBL will reconsider this, should this be an official UBL position.

Best Regards

Stig Korsgaard
M.Sc.E Standardisation Manager
Tel: 	+45 3370 1083
Cell: 	+45 2725 9083
Mail: 	stk@finansraadet.dk

Danish Bankers Association
Amaliegade 7
DK-1256 Copenhagen K
Tel:	3370 1000
Fax:	3393 0260

-----Original Message-----
From: jon.bosak@sun.com [mailto:jon.bosak@sun.com]
Sent: 11. august 2005 23:20
To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl] Transition Statement


| 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.

We are not asking CEFACT to command ISO to do anything; we are
asking CEFACT to support our longstanding goal of making UBL an
international standard.  If CEFACT does not think enough of UBL to
support ISO standardization and is not willing to aid UBL in
achieving one of its primary goals, then I have to wonder what UBL
has to gain from the closer association that CEFACT is requesting.

| 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.

I was not aware that ISO TC 154 was controlled by the U.S.  This
may come as a surprise to the other members of TC 154.  Did CEFACT
ask permission from the U.S. to submit EDIFACT for ISO

| 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.

ISO is authorized to standardize specifications such as UBL both
in the plain language of the TC 154 charter and in the division of
responsibilities stated in the ISO IEC ITU UNECE MoU.  The issues
relating to maintenance are no more than those usually attending a
PAS submission.

| 4. IMO there are no payload specs in ebXML 15000.

This is exactly the defect that UBL is designed to remedy.


To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS

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