OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-core message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments

Bill, and all other listserv participants,

My submission to Karsten is not a case of "Core Component issues continue to
be hammered out in private e-mails"  At the time I submitted these comments,
the document I reviewed was about to be submitted to QR, in preparation for
public review.  The document was not available for public review.  And while
I subscribe to this listserv, I have not been an especially active
participant, and felt that exposure of my comments at the time I wrote them
could impede the wonderful progress this team has been achieving, by
delaying review of an important document by a wider audience of ebXML

I only work part time, and I attend lots of meetings, so a public review
could come and go in the blink of my eye.  I had time to review the Spec
Schema document ahead of the public review cycle, and submitted my comments
to Karsten, leaving the decision to Karsten to expose them to the team
whenever it became appropriate to do so.  That they have not yet been
exposed is affirmation to me that the time to expose my comments has not yet

After a week away from the office, I observe that QR reviewed the document,
submitted their comments, which have been discussed and perhaps addressed to
their satisfaction.

I also observed that the discussion of data types was ongoing and was not
impacting the Spec Schema progress to public review (nor IMHO should that
discussion thread have such an impact).  I further observed that Bill seemed
to be misinterpreting the few comments I had previously made public on this
topic.  So I chimed in with another public comment.

I feel I have acted in good faith in this matter.  Had I sent my comments
directly to the listserv, I might have done the active participants a
disservice.  So I left the timing of exposure of my comments to a key team


-----Original Message-----
From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:wkammerer@foresightcorp.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 3:47 PM
To: ebXML Core
Subject: Re: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments

Bob Miller has submitted his comments re: the Datatype discussion
directly to Karsten.  He's asked that these comments not be exposed
until it was appropriate to do so, because he specifically did not want
them to become a show stopper in getting the document to public review.

Whatever documents is Bob referring to? The only way Bob's comments
could be a show-stopper is if these "documents" are a mess in some
respect.  This is a good thing - even if it holds up "public review."
What's "public review" anyway? Is this stuff advertised in InfoWorld?

Betty Harvey went to the trouble to compile the list of concrete XML
schema datatypes.  So I naturally assumed that they were an open topic
of discussion.  She even said "Feel free to throw darts."

This is supposed to an open consensus-based standards development
process.  So I'm somewhat disappointed to hear that Core Component
issues continue to be hammered out in private e-mails.  I'm not the
first to observe this tendency:

   "Core Components must be a closed process run by a handful of
   EDI companies.  They must be keeping their meetings secret to
   make sure ebXML vocabularies are faithful reproductions of EDI,
   and that nobody will be able to implement ebXML without
   software and services from EDI providers...."
   Todd F. Boyle (31 May 2000)

   "..there seem to be work being progressed via private
   distribution lists instead of the public available lists.  This
   has created the perception that ebXML is not as open as it claims
   to be."
   Klaus-Dieter Naujok (07 Jun 2000)

   "We simply must bring the working products of CC out of the closet
   and expose them to fuller examination. By not doing so, there is a
   cloud of secrecy descending on the work of CC that  will have a
   negative impact rather than positive."
   Rachel Foerster (28 Jul 2000)

   "One of the biggest [complaints] about our work is that it is being
   [kept] in private small groups. The "semi-open" approach suggested
   is not as open as we claim our process is. Who don't we want to see
   our document. What are we afraid of? I am not afraid of facing the
   comments. Better answer them now than later."
   Klaus-Dieter Naujok (30 Oct 2000)

William J. Kammerer
4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
+1 614 791-1600

Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
"Commerce for a New World"

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC