RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group

["Smith, Neal L. (NLSM)" <NLSM@chevron.com>]

Tony, 

I had a recent e-mail dialog with Laura Walker regarding the OASIS Technical
Committee formation process.  Although we were discussing a different topic
(the TREX/RELAX TC), and I normally don't like to quote people out of
context, in this case Laura's comments may be helpful: 

Because we believe very strongly that the XML community should be encouraged
to experiment and innovate, the OASIS Technical Process allows for any 3
members to initiate technical work.  Therefore, the existence of an OASIS
technical committee does not imply an endorsement by the organization or its
members of the work of that committee.  We promote our technical work so
that both members and non-members are aware of it, and have the option to
participate.

We are still at a point where technologists and businesspeople are learning
how to exploit the potential of the web for business use, and for that
reason, we want to encourage industry groups or other types of communities
to collaborate.  While we understand that some of this work may be
ill-conceived or suffer from lack of acceptance or adoption, some of the
work will contribute significantly.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	tony.am.fletcher@bt.com [SMTP:tony.am.fletcher@bt.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:37 AM
> To:	ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:	RE: ebXML in W3C?  and OASIS Business Transaction group
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> submit BPSS to W3C?
> 
> Seems rather funny to me.  UN/CEFACT is an arm of the United Nations and
> you
> can't get much more international than that, can you?  For all the good
> work
> that it has done, at the end of the day W3C is a US based not-for-profit
> organisation.  I agree however that there is a practical challenge for
> UN/CEFACT to produce output that commands the status at least that
> accorded
> to W3C outputs.  I also agree with a perception mentioned below that the
> W3C, up till now at least, has been seen as tackling the more the syntax
> issues, whereas OASIS and other organisations have tackled the application
> of those syntaxes.  The messaging (protocol) area is clearly a grey one
> where W3C may have a role to play.  However, I would have thought that in
> the business process area UN/CEFACT and OASIS should be able to
> stand-alone
> under the banner of ebXML.
> 
> Talking of OASIS, I noticed with concern, the post from James Bryce Clark
> that indicated that OASIS has started up its own new TC on business
> transactions.  I would appreciate it if someone would clarify rationale
> behind this, else I hope that OASIS will immediately close this group and
> direct the participants to the ebXML business process group instead.  If
> there is not a clear statement or swift action from OASIS people will
> wonder
> what the value of the MoU is.
> 
> Best Regards Tony
> 
> A. M. Fletcher
> BTexact Technologies
>     01473 644526     +44 1473 644526      m +44 (0) 7740 739490     Fax:
> +44
> (0) 1473 646291
>    Callisto House /261/pp46 (B81-MH), Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath,
> Ipswich  IP5 3RE    UK
>   tony.am.fletcher@bt.com
> 
> British Telecommunications plc
> Registered Office - 81 Newgate Street,  London,  EC1A 7AJ 
> Registered in England no 1800000  
> 
> This electronic message contains information from British
> Telecommunications
> plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended
> to
> be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not
> the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
> received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone
> or
> email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
> Sent: 03 July 2001 23:31
> To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? (was) Re: 2 July BP meeting notes and 16 July
> BP meeting notice
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 	From what I know and hear and talk, W3C is more fundamental in
> nature and
> OASIS is more "application" oriented. XML, Encryption, DSIG,.. all fit in
> the W3C bucket. But things like registry, business process, ebXML fit in
> the
> OASIS bucket. Of course, there are always exceptions.
> 
> 	IMHO, OASIS should be arbitrator on things like WSFL, registries,
> ... And
> like James pointed out, OASIS should establish a relationship/precedence
> work with W3C. And yes, it would be a shame if ebXML ends up as
> preliminary
> work/science projects towards other standards which cannibalize and nibble
> ebXML away :-(
> 
> 	just my 1c
> 
> cheers
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org