[Fwd: RE: Formal Protest from XMLGlobal.]

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>]

For your information.  This item will be discussed at our teleconference 28th Dec at 03:00 Pacific Time.


-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	RE: Formal Protest from XMLGlobal.
Date:	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:08:59 -0600
From:	"Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>
To:	'David RR Webber ' <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, 'ebxml repository ' <ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org>, 'Martin Bryan ' <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>, 'Klaus-Dieter Naujok ' <knaujok@home.com>

David, your protest is acknowledged.  

RR will anticipate the response from the QRT, which may include your
concerns.  We must follow due process at this point, due to critical
timeframes.  this is not out for public review. 

My opinion going into this was that a single canonical query syntax
(whatever the syntax) is a fundamental requirement for query
standardization, following the lead from OMG in their Query Services
specification.  Mapping various query syntaxes (Quilt, SQL 92) to this
cananical form is the most efficient means.  At this time OQL is specified
as this cananical form similar to the OMG specification.

I also believe in your viewpoint that this comparision should be documented.
Sorry to bring this up, but you were the one that committed to produce this
document in the Tokyo meeting.  RR is currently bandwidth constrained, as
are many of the other project teams.  

RR would be interested in these stats, hopefully including a matrix of query
syntax capabilities and vendor product implementations.  However, tasking
the current team (who is working very hard) to deliver this documentation at
such a critical point in time, would cripple our ability to produce ANY RR
specifications on-time.  While you may not agree, I think that "on-time"
currently out weighs the immediate concern.  Perhaps the review cycle will
allow us to document your request, once we finalize EXACTLY what is needed.

Please help me out regarding the Core Component request.  Was it a
"requirements" document that was emailed directly to me, that I forwarded it
to our list?  The posting got zero replies, so I brought it up to the StC
four weeks ago.  We (RR/CC) needs to follow up with a teleconference to
either discuss this version, or perhaps a version that includes more
background information and examples.  Is this information also in the ebXML
Requirements specification?  

Thank you for your concern, and I hope you are having a great holiday!
Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber
To: ebxml repository; Martin Bryan; Klaus-Dieter Naujok
Sent: 12/27/00 2:34 PM
Subject: Formal Protest from XMLGlobal.

We would like to protest that the current drafts contains
exclusive references to use of OQL.

We would like this protest noted in a new section in the 
document - Dissentions and Protests.

In Tokyo the syntax for ad hoc queries was discussed and
the decision was made that a decision matrix would be
created and that evaluation criteria would be tabulated
prior to any long term commitment on query syntax.

Sun staff made several assertions pertaining to OQL that
have subsequently been difficult to corroberate from
independent sources.

At the VERY LEAST the wording should be revised to 
state that  - for the proposes of the PoC in Vancouver,
temporary use will be made of OQL syntax as a means
to demonstrate functional capability - but that this in 
NO WAY represents a defacto decision to exclusively
use OQL.

Long term decisions on Query syntax should take
full account of W3C work in this area - and also the 
requests from other ebXML working groups - such
as Core Components.

Respectfully,

DW.   VP Business Development XMLGlobal.



-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142