Re: [ebxml-mktg] Re: [ebxml-dev] UBL Schemas should be renamed"ebXML Schemas"

[David Lyon <djlyon@froggy.com.au>]

No worries,

I can appreciate the reasoning, I guess.

Although I'm pretty sure that a year down the track somebody might wish to
change the name in any case as it is fairly important for newcomers.

Also, compared to OAG, it's worth keeping UBL simplistic as it has been
done.

Best Regards

David Lyon

----- Original Message -----
From: "David RR Webber - XML ebusiness" <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>
To: "David Lyon" <djlyon@froggy.com.au>
Cc: <ebxml-mktg@lists.ebxml.org>; <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>; "CRAWFORD,
Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>; "Jouko Salonen" <jouko.salonen@republica.fi>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-mktg] Re: [ebxml-dev] UBL Schemas should be renamed
"ebXML Schemas"


David,

I'd urge caution here.  There's more than one way to skin a goat,
and I'd hate for people to see ebXML as single threaded here.

UBL is just one part of the story - we need also to synergize with
OAG BODs, RosettaNet PIPs, et al.

Part of that story is developing consistent context mechanisms,
content assembly and registries of reliable industry dictionaries.

UBL is a step on the path, rather than the whole path IMHO.

Having the perception that if you are not doing UBL, you
are not doing ebXML would be extremely devisive.

I'm happy to see people sending good old fashioned EDI
payloads via ebMS - if that is what gets it done for them.

Cheers, DW.
=======================================================
Message text written by David Lyon
>
Hi Jouko,

Actually, I was one who argued FOR UBL very strongly last year when the
official ebXML view was that ebXML could be done without having a
vocabulary.

I argued that ebXML would be hard to understand in the real world without a
simple example vocabulary.

Now we have that with UBL and quite a good job has been done.

What I'm suggesting now is that it should probably be known as the "ebXML
Schemas".

Best Regards

David Lyon
<