Re: [ubl] Updated version of the Customization doc (v0.2)

[stephen.green@systml.co.uk]

Again, an excellent document in my opinion and I appreciate
the changes made. I've hesitated in asking this before but
maybe there is a legal issue the document might deal with:
the copyright statement on the OASIS artefacts seems to be
a little at odds with customisation. Is there an acceptable
way to create and publish schemas for subsets which can be
assured NOT to violate the stated OASIS copyright notice?

"This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to  
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it  
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published,  
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,  
provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included  
on all such copies and derivative works."

This gives the impression it is OK to produce a derivative schema
for a subset, even if you aren't a UBL group, provided it includes
the OASIS copyright.

But:

"However, this document itself may not be modified in any way,  
including by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS,  
except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or  
deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical Committee (in which case  
the rules applicable to copyrights, as set forth in the OASIS IPR  
Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it into  
languages other than English."

This gives the impression you cannot produce a schema which is a modification
of the OASIS UBL schema, unless you are a UBL TC group or another OASIS TC.

Maybe an agreed way to produce a custom-UBL schema without violation
of any of the copyright notice would not go amiss within the customisation
guidelines.


Plus I'm still not convinced the document adequately covers the matter
of semantic changes - so-called 'semantic drift' - as a reason to customise
and whether or not customisations of the definitions of BIEs or datatypes
is compliant or conformant. If compliant, then how to cater specifically
for such changes in a compliant way. And can a change which only changes
wording of a definition constitute a conformant customisation? And since
the change to a definition does affect instance validity does this not
require a slight modification or qualification of the definition of what
constitutes a conformant customization?


Sorry to ask questions which might provoke controversy but I guess they
have to be asked at some point and now seems to be the time.

-- 
Stephen D. Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice



Quoting mavis.cournane@cognitran.com:

> Dear all
> please find attached the updated version (0.2) of the Customization
> document based on plenary review today.
>
> Regards
> Mavis and Mike