voting — archive

Re: FW: [voting] BEA Systems Intentes to vote No on UBL Naming andDesign Rules

From: Eduardo Gutentag
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:54:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

voting message

Subject: Re: FW: [voting] BEA Systems Intentes to vote No on UBL Naming andDesign Rules

From: Eduardo Gutentag <[email protected]>
To: Hal Lockhart <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:50:41 -0800

I must interject here that the fundamental disagreement is not with
the architectural goals of distributed extensibility and versioning,
but rather with the solution offered when it comes to documents
intended to be legally binding. It is there, in fact, that the clash
of philosophies exist. For clarification purposes, I will quote
part of a message I sent Dave Orchard and the ubl-comment list on
10/09/04 -- my intention is not to engage in a long dialogue but rather
to direct people's attention to where this has already been discussed:

"From the very beginning of the activities of the NDR sub-committee we recognized
that the aim of the whole exercise is to enable people and processes to
produce business documents with the intention that they be legally binding.
It was therefore agreed, from a very early date and with no dissension, that
the use of wildcards in content models would not be permitted, as they render
validation worthless and of no more value than well-formedness checking in most
cases."

The whole context and conversation are reachable at
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200410/maillist.html

On 12/13/2004 01:59 PM, Hal Lockhart wrote:
> Forwarded on behalf of Dave Orchard in response to message from
> Christopher Crowhurst.
> 
>