RE: [ebxml-dev] ebXML core components derivation by restriction

[Edward Lipski <ELipski@p21.com>]

On Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:15 AM Stephen Gould wrote:

>1	the US negotiated a Treaty while not disclosing in the treaty 
>	with a major ally (Australia) that the US had passed legislation 
>	that proved the US was implementing non-ISO standards so
>	that US companies could generate income from acting as 
>	Agents for"Document re-formating and re-routing"
>     http://www.oic.org/z/FZIG/A/ds/611BACE1.htm
>
>2	The US is using the Fear Factor of "Defence against Terrorism"
>	to co-erce allies into signing these agreements
>
>3	while at the same time aiding and assisting the Zionist 
>	Government to provoke Terrorism

1. The legislation pointed to by your link above - HIPA (Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability act) was passed in 1996 (under the Clinton
Administration), and as the name suggests only legislates health and medical
information. From my personal meetings with US legislators I can assure you
that they have no concept of X12, EDIFACT, or XML, and their Staffers who do
understand the differences wouldn't want either legislated (they want it
decided by the market). HIPA was meant only to address US-domestic health
privacy, and healthcare cost concerns, and it is still under some
controversy today.
Also, there are so many highly paid lobbyist in Washington DC (Many openly
employed by other Nations like China, and Australia) that I doubt that the
companies who could make money from "Document re-formatting and re-routing"
could possibly compete for the attention of the US Federal Government. 
The US has many times in the past modified previous legislation that has
been in conflict with recent Treaty obligations. 

2. and 3. I really don't see how this blind anti-American rubbish belongs on
a technology standards list. 

Moreover, the points made by Stephen Gould rely on a false premise. That
either the Australian government (and all non-US governments by implication)
is too incompetent to negotiate their own treaties, or that the US
government is much smarter, and more clever than other governments. Do you
really believe either to be true? 

Thank you.
Ed Lipski
Manager of Integration Technology
Prophet 21, Inc.




-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen GOULD [mailto:sggould@oic.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:15 AM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: Australian Senator; OIC Management Committee
Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] ebXML core components derivation by restriction


Ron -  I agree with you that there needs to be a global non-profit
organisation "The UDEF tree structures need to be managed by a 
global non-profit"

The key issue is that the rest of the world cannot afford for "the 
global non-profit organisation" to be US based.

The recent deceitful behaviour by the US with the Australia-USA Free 
Trade Agreement [Aus-USA-FTA] has shown that the US intentions
are about electronic imperialism and the US uses Standards
to generate revenue for US companies and US companies only

The deceitful behaviour is that:

1	the US negotiated a Treaty while not disclosing in the treaty 
	with a major ally (Australia) that the US had passed legislation 
	that proved the US was implementing non-ISO standards so
	that US companies could generate income from acting as 
	Agents for"Document re-formating and re-routing"
http://www.oic.org/z/FZIG/A/ds/611BACE1.htm

2	The US is using the Fear Factor of "Defence against Terrorism"
	to co-erce allies into signing these agreements

3	while at the same time aiding and assisting the Zionist 
	Government to provoke Terrorism

BACKGROUND

In 1991 I spent 3 months with the European Aerospace Association
[AECMA] discussing how to facilitate the exchange of information
between stake-holders in the Eurofighter Collaboration
http://www.halisa.net/9/9EAECFD1.gif

These meetings were supported by the Australian Trade
Commission with discussions on CALS
http://www.halisa.net/C1/Austr91.jpg

15 years down the track the US is legislating for the US ANSI-X12
Standards while the rest of the world moves towards ISO Standards
which are supposedly supported by the US.

Ron - a large number of people around the world are donating a lot
of time, effort and resources while the US is being very deceitful.

NEXT STEPS

I look forward to a simple explanation as to why:

1	the US is legislating for ANSI-X12 Standards while 

2	participating on ISO Standard committees like UN/EDIFACT and

3	negotiating Free Trade Agreements that do not reveal what 
	standards will be used in Electronic Commerce

Regards

Stephen GOULD
Chair - Management Committee
XML & E-commerce Special Interest Group
OPEN INTERCHANGE CONSORTIUM

E:	sggould@oic.org
T:	{61}(2) 9953-7412
W:	http://www.oic.org/3a4a.htm


On 30 Jul 04, at 11:05, Schuldt, Ron L wrote:

> Fred,
> 
> <Ron>How much lag time is possible between the time an extension is 
requested and it gets approved by TBG17? Does the TGB17 Working Group 
meet periodically to review proposed extensions or is it an ongoing process?
If 
they meet periodically, what is the frequency? Are the procedures and
decision 
criteria published somewhere? Where is the current library of CCs and BIEs 
published?</Ron>
> 
> <Fred>TBG17 now has telecons every week. As a matter of fact yesterday, 
during our mail-conversation we had one. The group is building up its
procedures, 
by assessing the first (eight?) submissions from industry groups. As all
this stuff 
is new to everybody we must find the best way by just doing it. After next
week 
we'll have a full week F2F. We envisage it is ongoing work and we hope by 
finetuning the procedures and learning from people like you who have
experience 
in ontology-engineering in the future to automize (or at least do an
automatical 
pre-assessment of) most of the work. Both the draft procedures and the first
draft 
list of CC's have been published in the UN/CEFACT community. Please contact 
Alan Stitzer (Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com) who is leading the project.</Fred>
> 
> If a health and medical organization submits proposed extensions, does 
TGB17 intend to consult neutral third party subject matter experts in the
health 
and medical field who are also knowledgeable of the total current content in
the 
CCs and BIEs library and therefore will assure all users that there is no
conflict? 
> 
> IMHO, the task that TGB17 is beginning to undertake will soon require the 
support of automation (software and an underlying database) and a solid 
ontology and a commitment from neutral third party subject matter experts in

order to populate the library with artifacts that do not conflict with each
other. I 
also believe that the library needs to have a structured ID (like a Dewey
Decimal 
ID) or the library will soon become useless due to its size. 
> 
> The UDEF is an approach that could satisfy all of the above requirements -
an 
ontology that is relatively simple to understand and can be easily mapped to

CCTS, software (that invokes a workflow that ties in to subject matter
experts 
and provides an initial screening for conflicts) and a database that helps
prevent 
semantic collisions within the ontology, and a built-in structured ID that
provides 
an indexing mechanism that computers can use across the globe. The ID uses a

syntax very similar to an IP address (number.number.number) that computers 
can handle quite readily and that can leverage DNS technology to convert the
ID 
to a name or vice versa.
> 
> The UDEF tree structures need to be managed by a global non-profit. At
this 
point in time, the global non-profit that would take responsibility for
managing the 
UDEF tree structures has not been selected. Is TGB17 possibly interested in 
becoming that global non-profit? If so, I will share the specification that
was 
developed by the aerospace industry that details the requirements that the
global 
non-profit must do in order to allow the "library" (global registry) to
succeed.
> 
> Ron Schuldt
> Senior Staff Systems Architect
> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
> 11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
> #F521 Mail Point DC5694
> Littleton, CO 80127
> 303-977-1414


Visit our website at http://www.p21.com/visit 
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may contain legally
privileged information.  It is intended solely for the person or entity to
which it is addressed.  Access to this e-mail by anyone else is
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, action taken, or action omitted to be taken in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you received this
e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.