RE: Jon Bosak's suggestion that xCBL be adopted as the ebXML Busi nessDocument framework

["Probert, Sue" <Sue.Probert@commerceone.com>]

OK Stuart I'll try the list server again for this reply. Please KArl if I
fail could you post this one as well, many thanks.

Commerce One and SAP fully realise the implications of their offer. The
standards body would, of course, be the responsible party for the future
development of the open standard that results from its work. Commercial
influence cannot, and should not, apply in an open standards environment
except as part of the accepted governance for participation.

It will not, in fact, be xCBL that will be developed at all. It will instead
be the global standard for implementation of 'ebXML compliant' XML. Whether
or not xCBL is an input to the development process is immaterial to that.

regards

Sue


Sue Probert
Director, Document Engineering
Commerce One
Tel: +44 1332 342080
www.commerceone.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Campbell [mailto:stuart.campbell@tieglobal.com]
Sent: 30 March 2001 18:27
To: Probert, Sue
Cc: 'Karl Best'; 'Jon Bosak'
Subject: RE: Jon Bosak's suggestion that xCBL be adopted as the ebXML
Business Document framework


Hi Sue

I wonder if your xCBL comments are made about version 2.0 or version 3.0?
***Its true, really version 2.  Whilst is great there are more involved and
its on a non C1 specific website the bottom lines are:
'who makes the final decision on the changes to xCBL"
If the answer is'C1/SAP' then this is a long way from being open

and
'Is it reasonably (openly) possible for external companies to be part of the
team that decides the changes'.
If the answer is no, then this is a long way from being open

I think these points are the ones i would like answers to and would invite
to be put on the exploder

"offered this work to the ebXML follow-on group as a starting
point if it proves to be of interest. Of course, this technical information
is already available openly but what both companies have also offered is
some commitment to play a part in supporting the work i.e. to provide links
to the joint development team itself."

xCBL should IMHO under no way be a 'starting point' - this should be EDIFACT
or start from zero.  XCBL, like other inputs, should be welcomed to
influence the starting point; so if this is what C1 is saying then thats
great as well

Cheers

STUART