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

[AlanKotok@cs.com]

Stephen:

Having spent the better part of the past 15 years involved with ASC X12 or ebXML, I find your allegations so outrageous that they border on an insult. The proceedings of the groups that prepared these standards are open and transparent, and nothing in which I was involved over this time comes even close to what you are discussing. 

Whatever issues you may have with the recent U.S.-Australia trade agreement, let me suggest you take them up with the authorities in the agencies that negotiated or ratified the treaty, and leave them off this list.

Alan Kotok
AlanKotok@cs.com
http://www.technewslit.com/
Editor, ebXML Forum, http://www.ebxmlforum.org/
Editor, PublicDiplomacy.Org, http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/





"Stephen GOULD" <sggould@oic.org> wrote:

>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
>
>