Re: [voting] BEA Systems Intentes to vote No on UBL Naming and Design Rules

["Sastry Dhara" <sastry@dharacg.com>]

Multiple versions of documents is extremely undesirable, especially when the
systems consuming the documents have to persist the contents to their
respective
data stores. While I respect the desirability of design flexibility of
extensibility
(it sounds very elegant in news group discussions and for vendors to market
their
"translation" features), multiple versions of documents has actually caused
the
entire XML-based document exchange to take a back-seat in the industry.

Industries which tried to move away from EDI and into XML are questioning
what cost-savings
XML is brining to them.

If I were a vendor, I would vote exactly like BEA intends to do.

But, as a Systems Integrator, I respectfully submit that I agree with the
UBL TC.

Best regards.
Sastry Dhara
President/CEO
Dhara Consulting Group, Inc.
http://www.dharacg.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hal Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>
To: <voting@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:47 PM
Subject: [voting] BEA Systems Intentes to vote No on UBL Naming and Design
Rules


BEA Systems intends to vote No on making UBL NDR an OASIS Standard once the
voting period commences on December 16th. Our reasons are contained in the
comment below which we will post with our No vote. We are posting this
message to the organizational voting list to make our intentions known to
the voting members as we realize only TC members are likely to examine the
votes which have been cast.

Hal Lockhart
Organizational Representative - BEA Systems, Inc.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
BEA Systems votes no on UBL Naming and Design Rules v1.0 as an OASIS
Standard.  BEA commented during the public review that we believe that
distributed extensibility and versioning is a key architectural component of
distributed systems and UBL should allow for distributed extensibility [1].
The UBL TC responded to the effect that exchanging business documents where
one side did not have the extension schema - what we have called distributed
compatible extensibility - is not in business interests because both sides
must understand any extensions for continued exchange.  We believe that this
requirement - that all parties in an exchange must simultaneously deploy new
schemas and semantic understanding - is too onerous for business scenarios.
There is a long history of compatible evolution of business documents that
could be formalized and fostered by UBL.  We are very concerned that this
design will lead to very tightly coupled and brittle business systems. We
are also concerned that this specification will act as an undesirable model
for other specifications.


1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200410/msg00000.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: voting-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: voting-help@lists.oasis-open.org