[FRIENDLY REMINDER] Re: [regrep-cc-review] Conformance to CCTS

Team,

Just a friendly reminder that I will be sending the e-mail I reference
below to Kathryn tomorrow AM (US Eastern time). For those who have not
yet responded and wish to, please do so asap.

Thanks,
Joe

Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> Team,
> 
> I am planning to draft an e-mail to Kathryn very shortly regarding the
> legal aspects of our level of conformance to the CCTS spec. As we have
> seen, there are various requirements in the current CCTS spec that we
> cannot conform with because such conformance does not make sense in
> light of our registry architecture.
> 
> Having been informed of the feedback to the UN/CEFACT CCTS Team from at
> least one other group, it appears to me that some additional updates may
> take place to the current CCTS spec before it reaches final approval. If
> so, this would delay our implementation of what I consider to be a
> long-needed and critical feature of our architecture. We may not want to
> delay this feature any longer.
> 
> Page 10 of the CCTS spec states, regarding conformance:
> 
> 4.3 Conformance
> 
> Applications will be considered to be in full conformance with this
> technical specification if they comply with the content of normative
> sections, rules and definitions.
> 
> [A1] Conformance shall be determined through adherence to the content of
> normative sections, rules and definitions.
> 
> As per our analysis of the CCTS spec against our registry architecture,
> we will not be in full conformance with the CCTS spec. This leaves
> several options:
> 
> (1) Notify the CCTS Team of those places where we will not be in
> conformance (we will do this), and have the CCTS Team update their spec
> accordingly;
> 
> MY THOUGHTS: The CCTS Team is under no obligation to do so, any more
> than we are under an obligation to be 100% conformant with their spec.
> 
> (2) Notify the CCTS Team of those places where we will not be in
> conformance, and assume that they may/may not update their spec
> accordingly; we will call our Technical Note "Implementing UN/CEFACT
> ebXML Core Components in an ebXML Registry";
> 
> MY THOUGHTS: Since the CCTS spec is copywritten, can we call our
> Technical Note "Implementing UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components in an ebXML
> Registry" if we are not in 100% conformance?
> 
> (3) Notify the CCTS Team of those places where we will not be in
> conformance, and assume that they may/may not update their spec
> accordingly; we will not use the term "UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components"
> in the title of our Technical Note, but will instead call something like
> "Component-Level Registration and Reuse in an ebXML Registry". We will
> state that our work is *based on* the UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components
> specification.
> 
> MY THOUGHTS: Not sure of the legal ramifications of this, since the CCTS
> spec is copywritten.
> 
> I plan to request on Wed. that Kathryn raise this to the proper OASIS
> folks so that it may be investigated from the legal side. In the
> meantime, any feedback you would like to give is welcome and
> appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!
> Joe
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php