RE: Representation Types Alternatives

[Stuart Campbell <stuart.campbell@tieglobal.com>]

Mike

In answer to your question, no i am referring to representation type

We can add to them, change them, delete them - but at the moment, when
reading QA report, you will find that there are issues like 'what the hell
do i do with them and how do i really make them'.  I can tell you that i for
one, and im not alone, really admire the effort in CC but equally have not
got a clue how i can employ this valuable work.  We can have 5 or 50 of
them, i really dont care, but if they are never used it really doesnt
matter - it will be just another standards document which sits on the shelf
somewhere

Stuart

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 17:34
To: 'ebXML-core'
Subject: Re: Representation Types Alternatives


If you're referring to the discussion about paying for standards, I agree
that
is a minor discussion.  If you're referring to representation types, I think
this is a fundamental issue that needs to be resolved in whatever is
approved
for Vienna.

Mike

Stuart Campbell wrote:

> I have to say that although an interesting an important area, there are a
> lot more things which are important to resolve in core-components
> deliverables right now.  We're drilling into detail here with out hitting
> the basics like 'how do i use core components'
>
> I think it would  be astute to store up these comments and put more focus
on
> get the CC spec perfect and then have long discussion on these detailed
> subjects
>
> Just a  thought
>
> [personal, not a qa comment btw]
>
> Regards
>
> STUART
> Technical Strategy Director, Technical Strategy Team
> Business Development Unit
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stuart Campbell
> TIE Holding NV
> UK          T:+44 1270 254019   F:+44 7971 121013
> Netherlands  T:+31 20 658 9335   F:+31 20 658 9901
> Global       M:+44 7970 429251   E:stuart.campbell@TIEGlobal.com
>                  W:www.TIEglobal.com P:www.stuartcampbell.co.uk
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Probert, Sue [mailto:Sue.Probert@commerceone.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 21:46
> To: 'tboyle@rosehill.net'
> Cc: ebXML-core
> Subject: RE: Representation Types Alternatives
>
> Todd
>
> Until very recently I was in a very similar position as a VSE (Very Small
> Enterprise). I agree with you on the principles involved and I reckon it
> hurts larger organisations as well. I believe strongly that if we are to
> follow standards as respected as ISO then we should be able to arrange
with
> them to have access to stnadards documents at least to study whilst doing
> our work. Most NGOs are open to this approach but in this case even as a
> member of ISO TC154 I haven't actually approached ISO on this yet with
> respect to our interest in 11179. So, to be fair, we shouldn't criticise
> them at this stage.
>
> All UN/CEFACT documents are available freely and completely free of
charge.
>
> Sue
>
> Sue Probert
> Director, Document Engineering
> Commerce One
> Tel: +44 1332 342080
> www.commerceone.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Boyle [mailto:tboyle@rosehill.net]
> Sent: 10 April 2001 20:44
> To: Probert, Sue; 'Blantz, Mary Kay'; rawlins@metronet.com
> Cc: 'CRAWFORD, Mark'; ebXML-core
> Subject: RE: Representation Types Alternatives
>
> Probert, Sue
> > BTW I do not have a copy of 11179 as it is an extensive set of
> > documents which ISO like to be paid for! Like most other ISO docs
> > it is rarely at hand electronically.
>
> As a small business person I would like to formally protest
> these EBXML activities based on copyrighted "standards" which
> cannot be obtained without payment.
>
> This includes all of ISO, and it apparently includes all of
> the X12 dictionary and supporting documents.  This may also
> include EDIFACT and X12 MIGs.  Why are NGOs treated better than
> software companies?
>
> It is inappropriate and systematically unfair, especially for
> Quasi-governmental organizations like UN/CEFACT, to be setting
> standards that individuals and small businesses will be required
> to follow, but which cannot be understood without paying for
> documentation.  The cost of participating in ebXML and other
> bodies is already excessive to small business, resulting in
> disenfranchising them from the tradeoffs that are being made.
>
> Further, these pricing policies have the effect of driving away
> technical and business domain participation, needed by ebXML.
>
> I'm fully aware standards work has economic costs. But charging
> for copies of standards is the wrong way to recover them.
>
> The same situation exists in GAAP reporting: the AICPA and FASB
> in the US are private organizations who set rules, which are
> then strongly enforced by federal and state regulators.  These
> GAAP requirements cost approximately $500 per year to subscribe to.
> But if I don't pay this money, it is de-facto impossible to
> follow the rules.  As a CPA I can lose my license, and be put in
> prison if I don't obey every word of those rules, even when
> preparing financial statements for nonpublicly listed companies.
>
> For your information, the result of this structure is that it
> incents the private organization to needlessly churn the rules,
> and to create unnecessarily complex rules, in order to maximize
> their own roles and revenue stream.  Many small practitioners
> believe these incentives are a significant problem affecting
> the AICPA and FASB.
>
> It is widely agreed that tax laws are driven by the same dynamic,
> of intentional churn and rule complexity to garner economic gains
> for particular industries.  Churn and complexity are common strategic
> tools in software companies to defend market positions, and have
> been applied by the legal profession in some areas of commercial
> law as well.
>
> Think about it.  The "data standards" industry may have parallels.
> What if nobody can even play the game until they are $30,000 invested
> in the rules?  Then they have incentives to prevent newcomers from
> entering the industry for free.  It's like a cancer.  Actors in
> the data standards wars already have enough incentives for complexity!
> Now you have permanent standards bodies, requiring churn as their
> revenue model.
>
> The key issues are fairness and goodwill, leading to wider adoption,
> and simplifying standards by increasing transparency, and reducing
> incentives for churn and complexity.
>
> Respectfully,
> Todd BOyle CPA
> Kirkland WA
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/



------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org