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

[Carol Geyer <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>]

The OASIS ebXML Joint Committee was formed to coordinate work within
OASIS, i.e., liasons between our TCs. It does not replace--nor should it
be confused with--the Joint UN/CEFACT OASIS ebXML Committee. You may
expect to see details on that committee very soon.

Carol Geyer
Director of Communications
OASIS

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:50 PM
To: 'ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org'
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] RE: OASIS Members to Develop Universal
BusinessLanguage


A few comments on Duane's comment:

Duane Nickull wrote <snipped>:

>
> 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).

FWIW and at the risk of spreading rumors, I have heard through the
grapevine that
the CEFACT Steering Group did not have the authority to execute the MoU
with
OASIS.  Whether or not that is the case, it appears to me that at least
the
spirit of the MoU has dissolved.  The OASIS ebXML Coordinating TC (I may
not have
the name correct), in its announcement made no explicit mention of
CEFACT (at
least if it did, it was buried so deep that I missed it).  Likewise, the
ebTWG
charter doesn't say anything about working with OASIS.  And, despite the
announcements that were made in Vienna, I have heard nothing of the
promised
joint ebXML steering committee that was to have representatives from
both groups.

>
> 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.

I don't agree that it is a clear violation of the MoU.  While the UBL
work seeks
to align with the ebXML work, it is not a derivative or dependent work.
So, a
very good case can be made that it is an independent effort.

>
> 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.

That is *your* prediction ;^)  Given the track record so far, I'll
believe it
when I see it...

> 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.

I agree with *that* prediction.

>
>
> Some people are extremely uptight about this current situation.

You bet.

> 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.

But Duane, you forget the old maxim that whenever two or more are
gathered
together, there you will find politics!  But regardless of whatever
CEFACT and
OASIS do and the politics involved, the marketplace will decide.  We'll
just see
which one of them (if either) produce what the marketplace really wants.

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com



----------------------------------------------------------------
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>