Re: [ubl] Question on Submissions for UBL 2.1

["Anthony B. Coates (Miley Watts)" <abcoates@mileywatts.com>]

We went through a stage in MDDL (http://www.mddl.org/) of taking  
"anonymous" requirements, where the person who took the requirements  
couldn't discuss who they were from, or why they were required.  Nor could  
any relevant examples be shared.

It was a nightmare, because we couldn't have full and open discussions  
about these submissions.  What happened is that a lot of changes were made  
to MDDL by the one person who was in the loop, and that was far from ideal.

In the end, MDDL stopped accepting such contributions, and so I would  
recommend that UBL not start.

Cheers, Tony.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:36:21 +0100, <stephen.green@systml.co.uk> wrote:

> Greetings TC
>
> In a matter reminiscent of the 'uncertainty principle',
> is there a way to make a submission of a requirement
> without necessarily making public the details of the
> background to the requirement? In a 'hypothetical' use
> case which is valid but not well known. It might be that
> there is, hypothetically, a desire to keep details of the
> use of a document from being public. Is the very nature
> of UBL as an open standard such that this cannot be done
> as an official submission of a requirement without making
> the details public? Hypothetically of course :-)

-- 
Anthony B. Coates
Senior Partner
Miley Watts LLP
Experts In Data
+44 (79) 0543 9026
Data standards participant: genericode, ISO 20022 (ISO 15022 XML),  
UN/CEFACT, MDDL, FpML, UBL.
http://www.mileywatts.com/