MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] NDR Specification
From: Eduardo Gutentag <>
To: Mavis Cournane <>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 08:08:28 -0800
+1
On 01/03/2005 06:35 AM, Mavis Cournane wrote:
> Mark
> I entirely agree with your motion and second it. In our disposition of
> comments for the NDR Spec in October we addressed the concerns raised by
> those casting no votes. What we said back then is still applicable now
> and there is nothing further to add in my opinion.
>
> Happy New Year to all.
>
> Regards
> Mavis Cournane
> On 3 Jan 2005, at 12:07, <> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> We received more than sufficient yes votes to pass the NDR
> specification. We did receive two no votes (it appears there is a
> problem with the vote archive page as it indicates a total of 3 no
> votes but one had been withdrawn and only two remain). The OASIS
> processes states:
>
>
> "If at the end of the voting period at least 15 percent of the
> voting membership has voted to approve the proposed standard, then
> if no votes have been cast to disapprove the proposed standard, it
> shall become an OASIS Standard immediately following the end of the
> voting period. However, if negative votes amounting to less than 15
> percent of the voting membership have been cast, the TC will be
> notified of the negative votes, after which the TC shall have 30
> days to take one of the following actions by resolution: (a) request
> OASIS TC Administration to approve the specification as submitted
> despite the negative votes; (b) withdraw the submission entirely; or
> (c) submit an amended specification, in which case the amended
> submission shall be considered as if it were a new submission,
> except that information regarding previous votes and any disposition
> of comments received in previous votes shall accompany the amended
> submission."
>
>
>
> Our "no" votes and their justification are:
>
> BEA Systems:
>
> ?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."
>
> SAP
>
> "SAP believes that the "Garden of Eden" approach used in UBL NDR,
> i.e. to use global element definitions only, is hard to implement
> and to maintain. The more flexible "Venetian Blind" approach, i.e.
> to allow local element definitions where appropriate, should be used
> instead."
>
>
> These comments are virtually identical to those submitted by these
> two organizations during the first review period in October. We
> addressed both of these comments at our Face 2 Face Meeting in
> November. Both are opinions on how best to use XML and XSD - rather
> than technical arguments that invalidate the UBL NDR approach.
> I would like to make a motion that we recommend to OASIS TC
> Administration that the NDR become an OASIS standard forthwith and
> would ask Jon to initiate the most expeditious TC process available
> to seek consensus within the TC on my motion.
>
>
> */Mark/*
> *Mark R. Crawford*
> *Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead*
> *W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative*
> *Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC *
> *Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group*
> *Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components*
>
> <image.tiff>* *
> *LMI Government Consulting*
> *2000 Corporate Ridge*
> *McLean, VA 22102-7805*
> *703.917.7177 Phone*
> *703.655.4810 Wireless*
> */The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater. /*
>
> */www.lmi.org/ *
>
>
--
Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail:
Corporate Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 (internal x31442)
Sun Microsystems Inc. | W3C AC Rep / W3C AB / OASIS BoD
