RE: [ubl] draft proposal re un/cefact

["Kama, Kamarudin Bin Tambi" <kama@crimsonlogic.com>]

Thanks Tim, my comments below,

1. The word "appropriate" seems a compromise. It does not send a clear
signal to the industry, which may lead to hesitatation, in terms of
adoption. Can we have it replaced with the word "the".

2. When we add more documents into either PSC or TSC, that does not
constitute major version, right? What then constitute major version?

Rgds
Kama

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:52 AM
To: Universal Business Language
Subject: [ubl] draft proposal re un/cefact

***
>       Consistent with the Cooperation Agreement between OASIS 
> and UN/CEFACT of
>       June 2005:
>       1. UN/CEFACT recognizes UBL 2 as appropriate 
> first-generation XML documents
>       for eBusiness.
> 
>       2. For OASIS and UN/CEFACT:
> 	  (a) future UN/CEFACT deliverables constitute the 
> upgrade path  for UBL,
>       and
> 	  (b) the maintenance of UBL 2 remains with the OASIS UBL TC.
> 
>       3. In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will produce its 
> own integrated set of
>       XML schemas within a period of three years, OASIS will 
> produce no further
>       major versions of UBL past UBL 2.
> 
>       4. OASIS will grant UN/CEFACT a perpetual, irrevocable 
> license to create
>       derivative works based on UBL.

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php