RE: [ebxml-dev] RE: OASIS Members to Develop Universal Business Language

["Gregory, Arofan" <arofan.gregory@commerceone.com>]

Title: RE: [ebxml-dev] RE: OASIS Members to Develop Universal Business Language

Duane:

Let me take the first shot at you... ;)

I don't think there is any violation of the MOU (not to mention questions about the official status of the MOU itself...). The ebXML leadership clearly stated that it wasn't going to work on XML document-level defintions, and since the UBL work will be compliant with the Core Components spec, I don't see where the problem is. Anyone who wants to produce an ebXML Core-Components-compliant vocabulary is free to do so (including OASIS) - isn't that what the spec is for?  (Are you telling me that I wasted two years of my life on this for nothing?)

After last week's ebTWG meeting, it became clear that there was no competing initiative within UN/CEFACT, and I would also point out that UN/CEFACT rejected the initial UBL proposal to become a part of UN/CEFACT. If CEFACT wanted it, why didn't they say "yes"? The OASIS option was choice #2.

Anyway, I have a feeling that whatever the relationship between UBL and UN/CEFACT needs to be, it will evolve, since there is so much overlap of membership. The whole point is standardization, after all.

Cheers,

Arofan Gregory

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 10:35 AM
To: McMahon. Brendan ITS
Cc: 'ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org'
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] RE: OASIS Members to Develop Universal Business
Language

Yikes!  Thats' a loaded question and sure to make a target out of
whoever responds.  I guess it may as well be me.

In May of 2001,  OASIS and UN/CEFACT jointly announced to the world that
ebXML had been finished (v 1.0).  They also signed a MoU that clearly
stated the responsibilities of the two partners for moving the work
forward.  Generally, it boils down to the fact that OASIS will look
after all the technical pieces (infrastructure) and UN/CEFACT will look
after all the content pieces (like Core Components and Business
Process/modeling).

It seemed simple enough however, OASIS has a policy which allows any
members to start a Technical Committee.  I agree that this is a good
policy and allows for open development of just about anything that is
structured information related.

A group of people, which I am also a member of, started working on a
concrete realization of an XML vocabulary to let the world use and that
would work within the ebXML infrastructure.  The initiative was
spearheaded by Jon Bosak from Sun and eventually named UBL (Universal
Business Language).  Since the work was to accept Commerce One's xCBL as
a contribution,  it needed to be a legitimate group in order to accept
the IP.  There were numerous options available and eventually the group
voted to apply to become an OASIS TC.  THat was accepted.

There is overlap with the continuing work of UN/CEFACT and it is
possible that the two groups will duplicate some of their work.

Those are the facts.  Now some of my personal opinions:

I think that while there is a clear violation of the ebXML MoU, OASIS
cannot be blamed becuase their process was known to all, including
UN/CEFACT before the MoU was signed.  UN/CEFACT does however, have the
right to complain about the situation as it does violate the MoU.

UN/CEFACT will continue the work of ebXML as if UBL never existed and
deliver the functionality to enable people to use ebXML, since this if
their original charter.  The OASIS UBL committe has some very smart
people serving on it, some of which are also involved in the UN/CEFACT
ebTWG, and they will probably deliver some very  interesting and useful
work.

Some people are extremely uptight about this current situation.

I personally think that the world has more pressing and bigger problems
to worry about than who delivers what and who gets credit for it.  Since
all the work will get shared eventually,  hopefully the businesses and
users will win.

There is the two minute summary.

Duane

McMahon. Brendan ITS wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This mailing list has recently contained a number of posts that contain
> references to various "political" problems currently besetting the ebXML
> initiative.
>
> Can any of the ebXML "insiders" who contribute to this list please explain
> to "outsiders" like me what exactly is going on, both in general, and
> specifically why Oasis now feels compelled to start a UBL TC, apparently in
> competition with responsibilities of the UN/CEFACT group?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brendan McMahon
> ESB, Ireland
>
>
>
> * ** *** ** * ** *** ** * ** *** ** *
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
> This message has been scanned for viruses.
>
> * ** *** ** * ** *** ** * ** *** ** *
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>