OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [ebxml-dev] RE: OASIS Members to Develop Universal Business L anguage

A few words on how repositories (and component use) may evolve.
Specifically, to rise the policy discussion once again - who is the likeliest operator for such repository
The run-time process user has several concerns:
And, more to the point, how is the business person in your example supposed to notify the repository operators that there is a gap and (s)he has a proposal to fill it wit such and such component?
My impression is that this functionality would need to be part of the repository functionality. While it is standards bodies that maintain the official list of core components, the use of those components will be up to the business users.* * *

You could call up RosettaNet or EDIFACT's EWG today and say, "I need a Frammistat transaction and your codes don't include it.  Please add one."   When would they listen to you?    It depends on whether your problem is unique or common, whether you're within their defined scope of service, and how inclined they are to change.  

Think instead of a library as the metaphor.  There will be competing libraries, but not all will be comprehensive, and we will not always use them.   If you and I do an e-deal (by signing a CPA which references specific BPs), we may agree to string together a series of BPs from the common library.  We may also agree to use some processes, transactions or objects that are peculiar to the two of us, by creating a shared definition and referencing it, and decline the library version.   My reason may be because the library doesn't have what I want -- or because it does, and I don't like the terms in the library's version.  It may depend on the availability of adequate generic versions, the peculiarities of the specific transaction, the evenhandedness or bias of the proposed component, the transparency of the proposed component, or our respective market power.

Remember, what we are assembling out of these LEGO pieces is a contract.  Your mental image should be the smiling user-car salesman handing you a sheaf of papers:  "Here you are, it's the standard deal;  just sign next to the twelve little yellow tabs."   Sometimes you sign;  sometimes you read it carefully;  sometimes you give him your own terms instead.  It depends on who he is, what you're buying, and how much you care.

Regards   Jamie

James Bryce Clark   
VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.
Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce  
1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com    jbc@lawyer.com

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC