Re: FW: [voting] BEA Systems Intentes to vote No on UBL Naming andDesign Rules

[Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>]

I must interject here that the fundamental disagreement is not with
the architectural goals of distributed extensibility and versioning,
but rather with the solution offered when it comes to documents
intended to be legally binding. It is there, in fact, that the clash
of philosophies exist. For clarification purposes, I will quote
part of a message I sent Dave Orchard and the ubl-comment list on
10/09/04 -- my intention is not to engage in a long dialogue but rather
to direct people's attention to where this has already been discussed:

"From the very beginning of the activities of the NDR sub-committee we recognized
that the aim of the whole exercise is to enable people and processes to
produce business documents with the intention that they be legally binding.
It was therefore agreed, from a very early date and with no dissension, that
the use of wildcards in content models would not be permitted, as they render
validation worthless and of no more value than well-formedness checking in most
cases."

The whole context and conversation are reachable at
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200410/maillist.html

On 12/13/2004 01:59 PM, Hal Lockhart wrote:
> Forwarded on behalf of Dave Orchard in response to message from
> Christopher Crowhurst.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard 
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 4:25 PM
> To: Hal Lockhart
> Subject: RE: [voting] BEA Systems Intentes to vote No on UBL Naming and
> Design Rules
> 
> 
> We did make a detailed technical response to the group during the Last
> Call period, which we believe the group fairly deliberated and responded
> to.  However, disagree with the response, and feel it is important to
> say so.  I should also say that members of the UBL group are quite
> familiar with our concerns, and there exists a fundamental disagreement
> with the architectural goals of distributed extensibility and
> versioning.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Crowhurst, Christopher
> 
> [mailto:Christopher.Crowhurst@thomson.com]
> 
>>Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 9:45 PM
>>To: Hal Lockhart
>>Subject: RE: [voting] BEA Systems Intentes to vote No on UBL Naming
> 
> and
> 
>>Design Rules
>>
>>
>>Hal
>>Can you articulate the group response during the development of the
>>standard to your concerns?
>>It seems unfortunately late in the process for such an important party
>>to be objecting to the standard. Now I have not been following closely
>>enough to sense if you have been fighting up stream all along, but I
> 
> am
> 
>>very concerned by the tonality of the email, and would like to fully
>>understand before casting the corporations vote.
>>Regards
>>
>>Christopher Crowhurst
>>Vice President and Principal Architect
>>Thomson Learning
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hlockhar@bea.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:48 PM
>>To: voting@lists.oasis-open.org
>>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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: voting-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: voting-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Corporate Standards            |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 (internal x31442)
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         W3C AC Rep / W3C AB / OASIS BoD