[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Updated version of the Customization doc (v0.2)
Stephen, Thanks for the question. I will ask OASIS for a clarification. Jon Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:23:58 -0700 From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk Again, an excellent document in my opinion and I appreciate the changes made. I've hesitated in asking this before but maybe there is a legal issue the document might deal with: the copyright statement on the OASIS artefacts seems to be a little at odds with customisation. Is there an acceptable way to create and publish schemas for subsets which can be assured NOT to violate the stated OASIS copyright notice? "This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works." This gives the impression it is OK to produce a derivative schema for a subset, even if you aren't a UBL group, provided it includes the OASIS copyright. But: "However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical Committee (in which case the rules applicable to copyrights, as set forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it into languages other than English." This gives the impression you cannot produce a schema which is a modification of the OASIS UBL schema, unless you are a UBL TC group or another OASIS TC. Maybe an agreed way to produce a custom-UBL schema without violation of any of the copyright notice would not go amiss within the customisation guidelines. Plus I'm still not convinced the document adequately covers the matter of semantic changes - so-called 'semantic drift' - as a reason to customise and whether or not customisations of the definitions of BIEs or datatypes is compliant or conformant. If compliant, then how to cater specifically for such changes in a compliant way. And can a change which only changes wording of a definition constitute a conformant customisation? And since the change to a definition does affect instance validity does this not require a slight modification or qualification of the definition of what constitutes a conformant customization? Sorry to ask questions which might provoke controversy but I guess they have to be asked at some point and now seems to be the time. -- Stephen D. Green Partner SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice Quoting mavis.cournane@cognitran.com: > Dear all > please find attached the updated version (0.2) of the Customization > document based on plenary review today. > > Regards > Mavis and Mike
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]