Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> <Quote>
> Maybe all that is needed is a statement in the paper that states that
> this work pre-dates CCRIM and will be suprceded by it.
> </Quote>
>
> I think that would be great - thanks Farrukh. I would be fine if it
> simply states that:
>
> (a) It pre-dates CCRIM, and
>
> (b) The approaches defined in the paper are not necessarily
> in line with
> those to be specified in the forthcoming OASIS/Registry TC Core
> Components Technical Note
Wow, I didn't expect our case-study to create such polemic. But
suggestion accepted: I think you're absolutelly right on making
clear that it is not necessarily aligned with ebXML work. I'm
working on the changes and I've added the following disclaimer:
"The project was not fully aligned with OASIS ebXML Standards and
should not be used as a reference implementation. Rather, this
case study should be read as a report of a successful experience
based on ebXML Standards. Furthermore, this case study should
inspire similar experiences to take place and to be shared
throughout the ebXML community. See section 3 for used
specifications and degrees of adoption."
Now for CCRIM disclaimer specifically, can you give me the
correct long form of CCRIM??
> I don't think it's necessary to say that it will be
> superceded by it. I
> agree that we need to recognize Diego's work, but we also need to
> recognize the work of the other members of the CC Review team
> as well by
> ensuring that there is no confusion as to the recommendations
> coming fom
> the team.
I reckon. I'll make sure I that is clear in the paper. I'll
also add Acknowledgments to cc-review since ideas from there were/
will be taken into consideration for any future move concerning
CCs in the Registry and Republica's LomakeFi Form Assembler tool.
Diego
