Subject: AW: [ubl] Transition Statement
Jon, I regard at least this part of your reply as an rhetoric answer, because I cannot imagine that you assume that I believe in any U.S. control of ISO TC154. OASIS is US based and thus it would be not favorable, if CEFACT or UBL put a proposal forward and the US Delegation for ISO voted NO. It is common and reasonable that the national ISO body is contacted first. The voting members of an ISO TC watch carefully whether a proposal has a good standing, especially, if it is about content payload, where maintenance is always an issue. I remember quite well the big amount of time and ressources to maintain the TDED. Regards Michael Dill -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. August 2005 23:20 An: firstname.lastname@example.org Betreff: Re: [ubl] Transition Statement | 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 standardization? : : The issues relating to maintenance are no more than those usually attending a PAS submission.