Re: [ubl] draft proposal re un/cefact

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

Firstly I apologise for sending out this document unannounced and without explanation. Its just we needed it for the Pacific TC call and I hadn't time to prepare it properly.

As Kama has realized this is the draft of the proposal reached by Jon and I with OASIS and UN/CEFACT regarding the future of UBL developments.  We (meaning you) are being asked to consider this proposal.  It probably isn't practical to start re-word the draft.  As your negotiating team, Jon and I believe this is a good as we'll get.  I suggest what we should do is discuss the outcomes of this and reach a point where we can say "yes" or "no" to it.

Because of the openness under which UBL operates we have been unable to present this to the UBL membership until both the UN/CEFACT Forum Management Group and the OASIS Board had had a chance to review it.  Only now are we able to put this draft document into the public domain (in that it will be on the UBL mailing list archive).

I would also like to put this into context by adding my own explanations for these statements...

Consistent with the Cooperation Agreement between OASIS and UN/CEFACT of June 2005:
  

This prior agreement specifially identifies UBL as an area that UN/CEFACT and OASIS should collaborate (amongst the ebXML suite).  So what we are proposing is an execution of this request.

1. UN/CEFACT recognizes UBL 2 as appropriate first-generation XML documents for eBusiness.

It transpires that UN/CEFACT is not able to offer UBL 2 any form of formal endorsement - it cannot do this for anyone. Neither can they offer exclusivity (which is why it has no "the" ).

2. For OASIS and UN/CEFACT:
	  (a) future UN/CEFACT deliverables constitute the upgrade path  for UBL,
  

One of the goals in this agreement is to make clear signs about convergence.  The intent is that UBL and CEFACT collaborate to make UBL 3. This may not be called UBL 3 so the onus is on us (as UBLers) to ensure that the XML schemas delivered by CEFACT are suitable for UBL 2 adopters.

      and
	  (b) the maintenance of UBL 2 remains with the OASIS UBL TC.
  

The current OASIS UBL TC will be retained to support adoption and maintain any versions of UBL 2.x.  2.x means that the schemas are backward compatible with UBL 2.0.  So if they don't break UBL 2.0 libraries then new document types could be added.  However, I think we would want this to be in collaboration with the work of UN/CEFACT.  For example, implementing a UN/CEFACT Business Requirement Specification in UBL 2 syntax.

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.
  

This means that we expect UN/CEFACT to produce (UBL 3 or equiavalent) within 3 years.  It gives adopters a guarantee that either UN/CEFACT or OASIS will continue developing UBL.  It also says OASIS and UN/CEFACT will not be duplicating their work.

4. OASIS will grant UN/CEFACT a perpetual, irrevocable license to create derivative works based on UBL.
  

This allows the asset to remain with OASIS but for UN/CEFACT to use any parts of UBL in its work.


Those who have been following this will realize that we have travelled a long road on this issue.  You may also recognize that what is now before us is not as dramatic a proposal as was previously discussed.  Experience has also taught us that there will be an attempt to read into this more than is intended and interpret things to suit  themselves.  Let me state that what you are being asked to review represents an attempt to formalize truly positive intensions from all parties involved.  It is fairly loose in its language because it relies on the goodwill of those involved to  follow the spirit of the agreement rather than the binding terms and conditions.  I doubt whether the US Declaration of Independence involved so much debate on terms.  Hopefully you will recognize the value of this proposal as a means of ensuring UBL's continuing success.

This matter will be on the agenda for the UBL Atlantic TC call 15:00 - 17:00 UTC WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL 2006.  We need to respond back to OASIS and UN/CEFACT within the next few weeks, so I would propose we try and conclude the discussions on the TC calls next week and work via email in between.


Kama, Kamarudin Bin Tambi wrote:

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