Re: Just what is a Core Component? Or, when is stealing wrong?

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

With due respect to William's conspiracy theories,  I think the flap about
this Commerce One announcement is much ado about nothing.  The version of
the page that I read this morning does not contain that sentence.   Even if
it did, there's a big difference between being "a" foundation and "the"
foundation.  We could just as easily say that ANSI ASC X12 V 2001 will be
used as "a foundation for the official XML encoding of ebXML".  Not an
untrue statement, since it is the original source of some of the material
used in the CC analysis and discovery process.  You *know* what kind of
howls that might bring from some quarters!  And, there's this mention of
"official" - "official" by whose authority?  If it was by ebXML, we
certainly haven't voted on it yet.  Also, though they say it was announced,
where is the pointer to the announcement?  Where's the press release?  I
suspect the source was Jon Bosak's recent presentation, which we've already
discussed ad nauseum.  Once could hardly call that an official announcement.

Regardless of whatever discussions are going on regarding life after Vienna,
this particular blurb smells of nothing more to me than somewhat aggravating
but mostly innocuous marketing hype.

However, if William's real concern is about confidential, privileged
discussions concerning the continuation of ebXML work (in particular the CC
work) after Vienna, join the club.  All I can say to that is that if you
don't like the choices you are offered, vote with your feet.  I do, believe,
however, that the CC work will continue in some way, shape, or form because
so many people want it to.

Cheers,

Mike


"William J. Kammerer" wrote:

> Mary Kay Blantz does "...not think that either of us should comment
> publicly on the xCBL issue."
>
> But the cat is already out of the bag. As Stuart Campbell helpfully
> pointed out on Thursday, the xCBL web site notes, at
> http://www.xcbl.org/about.html, "It was recently announced that xCBL
> will be used as a foundation for the official XML encoding of ebXML"
> Here, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty.
>
> This sounds powerfully like a decision has been made [adopting xCBL in
> lieu of continuing Core Components development] - and certainly not in
> an open, consensus based standards process.  Of course, I don't believe
> everything I read on the Internet, though Commerce One has had ample
> time since Thursday to remove the item if it were untrue or premature.
>
> In any event, calls to table discussion can be constructive predictors
> of ebXML's direction, as I noted a fortnight ago in Re: Representation
> Types Alternatives - Or Should Discussion be Tabled?, at
> http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200104/msg00118.html re: UDDI
> and SOAP.  My predictions for UDDI are coming to pass, as proven by
> recent activity on the ebXML Registry-Repository mailing list.
>
> Will we suddenly be surprised in Vienna, presented with a fait accompli
> on xCBL that the general plenary must ratify?
>
> Mary Kay did concernedly inquire of me: "...are you as disgusted and
> angry as you appear to be?"  I can assure her that I am neither, contra
> Stuart.
>
> William J. Kammerer
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 4950 Blazer Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> +1 614 791-1600
>
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "accelerating time-to-trade"
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com