OASIS Charter Submission Discuss

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

RAND for Requirements?

  • 1.  RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 00:26
    Greetings!
    
    The reasons given for RAND for this TC:
    
    Orit Levin:
    > 1. This TC is NOT going to produce any technical specifications.
    > 2. This TC is about gathering requirements backed up by use cases and 
    > scenarios and their applicability to existing technologies.
    > 3. This TC is about bringing as many as possible telecoms and vendors 
    > working in the Telecom area who feel most comfortable with RAND to 
    > contribute to the discussion.
    and, Abbie Barbir:
    
    > Plus I would add that we will be dealing with other SDO such as TM 
    > Forum, ITU-T etc.. and  working closely with them to get requirements 
    > from their documents. These SDO operate under RAND and as such this 
    > make the flow of information between the OASIS SOA TC and the other 
    > SDO more fluid.
    Seem very unpersuasive to me.
    
    First, I can't say that I am familiar with the practice of treating 
    requirements as IPR. Can someone point me to known legal authority for 
    the notion that a requirement is subject to some vendor's IPR? (Granting 
    that if I publish a book with a list of requirements, my statement of 
    the requirement may be copyrighted, i.e., "Text must be presented in a 
    *bold* font." (copyright Patrick Durusau 2008) but the substance of the 
    requirement itself, that is that users want to use *bold* text, I don't 
    think is subject to any IPR claim.)
    
    Second, from what has been said the TC doesn't intend to produce 
    anything that is subject to any known IPR claim, thereby rendering RAND 
    rather meaningless.
    
    Third, following up on Abbie's comment, is making this TC operate under 
    RAND a marketing strategy to make it more attractive to vendors who 
    aren't advised well enough to realize that requirements are not subject 
    to IPR? Or who take false comfort from committees that operate under RAND?
    
    While I am all for marketing OASIS as much as the next person I think 
    offering meaningless RAND on material that cannot be the subject of IPR 
    is a very bad marketing strategy. What do we say to those vendors who 
    falsely took our word that the requirements produced by this TC were 
    subject to RAND? Some dreaded FOSS group implements technology to meet 
    those requirements more cheaply and efficiently than commercial vendors. 
    Then what do we say? No, let's be honest up front with all our members, 
    even commercial vendors.
    
    BTW, I think anyone who charters a TC under RAND should have to specify 
    what IP is being contributed under what conditions so that OASIS members 
    can make a determination as to whether they wish to participate or not. 
    As far as I can tell at this point, neither Microsoft nor Nortel have 
    any IP as traditionally understood to contribute to this TC. So, why the 
    RAND? (Other than for false advertising purposes.)
    
    Hope everyone is having a great day!
    
    Patrick
    
    -- 
    Patrick Durusau
    patrick@durusau.net
    Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
    Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
    Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
    Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
    
    


  • 2.  RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 00:41
    Patrick
    RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
    This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with allowing
    Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environment that they
    are used to.
    
    Have a nice day
    Regards
    Abbie
    
    
    


  • 3.  Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 02:28
    Abbie,
    
    Abbie Barbir wrote:
    > Patrick
    > RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
    > This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with allowing
    > Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environment that they
    > are used to.
    >
    >   
    RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although clearly permitted.
    
    Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing* if "allowing 
    Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environments that 
    they are used to" isn't marketing.
    
    Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom provider in order to 
    get them to participate in OASIS.
    
    The work product of the TC appears to not be subject to RAND in any 
    meaningful way.
    
    If it were, that would have been your first response.
    
    So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth, that RAND is 
    meaningless for requirements and by extension for this TC.
    
    Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a strategy?
    
    Hope you are having a great day!
    
    Patrick
    
    
    
    > Have a nice day
    > Regards
    > Abbie
    >
    >
    > 


  • 4.  Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 02:52
    hi,
       +1 to patrick's comments plus
    
    1. I simply don't understand the assertion that because some other  
    telcom forums are RAND, this will simplify the operation of the TC.  
    Only Members of the TC may make "contributions" to the TC. Under OASIS  
    rules the member making the contribution is asserting that they have  
    the right to make that contribution. The other forums are not making  
    the contribution as they are not members of the TC. So i can't quite  
    figure out how the ipr mode of the TC has any impact.
    Abbie - can you provide a concrete example of how it matters.
    
    2. The assertion made by the proposers of this TC is you don't have to  
    worry because no IPR will be created. Note this is simply an  
    assertion. It may or may not be true. We don't know. We will find out  
    at some time after the TC approves spec and someone tries to use its  
    output if they will be faced with a demand to buy a license.
    It is very easy to turn the argument around. If no ipr is to be  
    created than surely there is no reason why it couldn't be chartered  
    under RF on Limited terms. Since no one will be contributing any IPR,  
    there won't be anything to license. So why can't the proposers stand  
    up and say this in a binding way?
    
    2 notes:
    1. I am using the term create IPR here loosely. What is really meant  
    is the specs produced by the TC won't have any Essential Claims owned  
    by the members of the TC which would be subject to licensing  
    requirements by the owner of the Essential Claim.
    
    2. I am NOT saying that a RAND TC is always inappropriate. If in fact  
    the proposers of a TC do think there will be Essential Claims that  
    read on the specs produced by the TC, and that the owners should be  
    allowed to charge for those licenses, then it might be appropriate.
    
    cheers,
       jeff
    
    On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
    
    > Abbie,
    >
    > Abbie Barbir wrote:
    >> Patrick
    >> RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
    >> This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with  
    >> allowing
    >> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environment that  
    >> they
    >> are used to.
    >>
    >>
    > RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although clearly permitted.
    >
    > Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing* if "allowing  
    > Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environments that  
    > they are used to" isn't marketing.
    >
    > Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom provider in order  
    > to get them to participate in OASIS.
    >
    > The work product of the TC appears to not be subject to RAND in any  
    > meaningful way.
    >
    > If it were, that would have been your first response.
    >
    > So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth, that RAND is  
    > meaningless for requirements and by extension for this TC.
    >
    > Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a strategy?
    >
    > Hope you are having a great day!
    >
    > Patrick
    >
    >
    >
    >> Have a nice day
    >> Regards
    >> Abbie
    >>
    >>
    >> 


  • 5.  RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 11:30
    Jeff,
    
    See inline
    Regards
    Abbie
     
    
    


  • 6.  RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 14:42
    Abbie,

    The jist of the points made in this thread can be summed up as: "what is the rationale for using RAND mode for this TC".
    In all of the responses that I've seen thus far from those such as yourself who advocate the RAND mode is: "because".
    Jeff's note below asks some compelling questions. Frankly, I don't think that your responses address the points he made
    or the questions he posed.

    As Jeff points out, it is one thing to use RAND for an effort for which it is reasonably expected that the output will
    read on Essential Claims for which the owner of said claims wishes to charge a royalty. Again, that is their prerogative.
    That is not the point of the pushback here. Those who are questioning the choice of RAND mode are really trying to
    understand how a set of _requirements_ would include content that read on Essential Claims of some member(s) of the
    TC?

    Cheers,

    Christopher Ferris
    IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry Standards
    IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
    email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    blog:
    http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    phone: +1 508 234 2986



    From: "Abbie Barbir" <abbieb@nortel.com>
    To: "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "Patrick Durusau" <patrick@durusau.net>
    Cc: <oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Date: 11/20/2008 06:30 AM
    Subject: RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?





    Jeff,

    See inline
    Regards
    Abbie



    mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:52 PM
    To: Patrick Durusau
    Cc: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14); oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    hi,
      +1 to patrick's comments plus

    1. I simply don't understand the assertion that because some other
    telcom forums are RAND, this will simplify the operation of the TC.  
    Only Members of the TC may make "contributions" to the TC. Under OASIS
    rules the member making the contribution is asserting that they have the
    right to make that contribution. The other forums are not making the
    contribution as they are not members of the TC. So i can't quite figure
    out how the ipr mode of the TC has any impact.
    Abbie - can you provide a concrete example of how it matters.
    ------- Abbie
    So are you assuming that we will have distinct members. Companies send
    people to more than one SDO and they can contribute per as make sense to
    move the work in harmony. Having a common IPR mode enables better
    cooperation and involvement by Telecom companies. Most telecom companies
    will not participate in a non-RAND TC. In addition, we can have Laision
    arrangements where comon points can be discussed.
    ------------------------------------

    2. The assertion made by the proposers of this TC is you don't have to
    worry because no IPR will be created. Note this is simply an assertion.
    It may or may not be true. We don't know. We will find out at some time
    after the TC approves spec and someone tries to use its output if they
    will be faced with a demand to buy a license.
    It is very easy to turn the argument around. If no ipr is to be created
    than surely there is no reason why it couldn't be chartered under RF on
    Limited terms. Since no one will be contributing any IPR, there won't be
    anything to license. So why can't the proposers stand up and say this in
    a binding way?

    ------- Abbie
    Jeff, I really do not undertand your logic here. You seem to forget that
    most telecom related work in done in RAND bodies. Are you saying that if
    the work is not done on RF on limited terms you will not get a dial tone
    when you lift your receiver???
    ----------------------------------------

    2 notes:
    1. I am using the term create IPR here loosely. What is really meant is
    the specs produced by the TC won't have any Essential Claims owned by
    the members of the TC which would be subject to licensing requirements
    by the owner of the Essential Claim.

    2. I am NOT saying that a RAND TC is always inappropriate. If in fact
    the proposers of a TC do think there will be Essential Claims that read
    on the specs produced by the TC, and that the owners should be allowed
    to charge for those licenses, then it might be appropriate.

    ------- Abbie
    Jeff, not every RAND work lead to royalties. I am glad that you say that
    OASIS can be inclusive. Have a nice day.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    cheers,
      jeff

    On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

    > Abbie,
    >
    > Abbie Barbir wrote:
    >> Patrick
    >> RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
    >> This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with
    >> allowing Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same
    >> environment that they are used to.
    >>
    >>
    > RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although clearly permitted.
    >
    > Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing* if "allowing
    > Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environments that
    > they are used to" isn't marketing.
    >
    > Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom provider in order to
    > get them to participate in OASIS.
    >
    > The work product of the TC appears to not be subject to RAND in any
    > meaningful way.
    >
    > If it were, that would have been your first response.
    >
    > So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth, that RAND is
    > meaningless for requirements and by extension for this TC.
    >
    > Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a strategy?
    >
    > Hope you are having a great day!
    >
    > Patrick
    >
    >
    >
    >> Have a nice day
    >> Regards
    >> Abbie
    >>
    >>
    >>
    Original Message-----
    >> From: Patrick Durusau [
    mailto:patrick@durusau.net] Sent: Wednesday,
    >> November 19, 2008 7:25 PM
    >> To: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
    >> Subject: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
    >>
    >> Greetings!
    >>
    >> The reasons given for RAND for this TC:
    >>
    >> Orit Levin:
    >>
    >>> 1. This TC is NOT going to produce any technical specifications.
    >>> 2. This TC is about gathering requirements backed up by use cases
    >>> and scenarios and their applicability to existing technologies.
    >>> 3. This TC is about bringing as many as possible telecoms and
    >>> vendors working in the Telecom area who feel most comfortable with
    >>> RAND to contribute to the discussion.
    >>>
    >> and, Abbie Barbir:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Plus I would add that we will be dealing with other SDO such as TM
    >>> Forum, ITU-T etc.. and  working closely with them to get
    >>> requirements from their documents. These SDO operate under RAND and
    >>> as such this make the flow of information between the OASIS SOA TC
    >>> and the other SDO more fluid.
    >>>
    >> Seem very unpersuasive to me.
    >>
    >> First, I can't say that I am familiar with the practice of treating
    >> requirements as IPR. Can someone point me to known legal authority
    >> for the notion that a requirement is subject to some vendor's IPR?
    >> (Granting
    >> that if I publish a book with a list of requirements, my statement of

    >> the requirement may be copyrighted, i.e., "Text must be presented in
    >> a
    >> *bold* font." (copyright Patrick Durusau 2008) but the substance of
    >> the requirement itself, that is that users want to use *bold* text, I

    >> don't think is subject to any IPR claim.)
    >>
    >> Second, from what has been said the TC doesn't intend to produce
    >> anything that is subject to any known IPR claim, thereby rendering
    >> RAND rather meaningless.
    >>
    >> Third, following up on Abbie's comment, is making this TC operate
    >> under RAND a marketing strategy to make it more attractive to vendors

    >> who aren't advised well enough to realize that requirements are not
    >> subject to IPR? Or who take false comfort from committees that
    >> operate under RAND?
    >>
    >> While I am all for marketing OASIS as much as the next person I think

    >> offering meaningless RAND on material that cannot be the subject of
    >> IPR is a very bad marketing strategy. What do we say to those vendors

    >> who falsely took our word that the requirements produced by this TC
    >> were subject to RAND? Some dreaded FOSS group implements technology
    >> to meet those requirements more cheaply and efficiently than
    >> commercial vendors.
    >>
    >> Then what do we say? No, let's be honest up front with all our
    >> members, even commercial vendors.
    >>
    >> BTW, I think anyone who charters a TC under RAND should have to
    >> specify what IP is being contributed under what conditions so that
    >> OASIS members can make a determination as to whether they wish to
    >> participate or not. As far as I can tell at this point, neither
    >> Microsoft nor Nortel have any IP as traditionally understood to
    >> contribute to this TC. So, why the RAND? (Other than for false
    >> advertising purposes.)
    >>
    >> Hope everyone is having a great day!
    >>
    >> Patrick
    >>
    >> --
    >> Patrick Durusau
    >> patrick@durusau.net
    >> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
    >> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format
    >> TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1,
    >> 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
    >>
    >>
    >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    >> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    >>
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/
    >> my_workgroups.php
    >>
    >>
    >
    > --
    > Patrick Durusau
    > patrick@durusau.net
    > Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
    > Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC

    > (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1,
    > 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    >
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

    --
    Jeff Mischkinsky
    jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
    Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware
    +1(650)506-1975
                    and Web Services Standards                                                              500
    Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
    Oracle                                                                                                                                        Redwood
    Shores, CA 94065









    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php






  • 7.  RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 21:06
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    I have to side with Abbie here, which is a strange thing indeed . “Because they want to” is as valid an answer as anything, and it’s up to the writers and supporters of the charter to decide what mode they want; period, no further discussion required.

    Martin.

    From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: 20 November 2008 14:41
    To: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Abbie,

    The jist of the points made in this thread can be summed up as: "what is the rationale for using RAND mode for this TC".
    In all of the responses that I've seen thus far from those such as yourself who advocate the RAND mode is: "because".
    Jeff's note below asks some compelling questions. Frankly, I don't think that your responses address the points he made
    or the questions he posed.

    As Jeff points out, it is one thing to use RAND for an effort for which it is reasonably expected that the output will
    read on Essential Claims for which the owner of said claims wishes to charge a royalty. Again, that is their prerogative.
    That is not the point of the pushback here. Those who are questioning the choice of RAND mode are really trying to
    understand how a set of _requirements_ would include content that read on Essential Claims of some member(s) of the
    TC?

    Cheers,

    Christopher Ferris
    IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry Standards
    IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
    email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    blog:
    http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    phone: +1 508 234 2986


    From:

    "Abbie Barbir" <abbieb@nortel.com>

    To:

    "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "Patrick Durusau" <patrick@durusau.net>

    Cc:

    <oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>

    Date:

    11/20/2008 06:30 AM

    Subject:

    RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?





    Jeff,

    See inline
    Regards
    Abbie




    From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:52 PM
    To: Patrick Durusau
    Cc: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14); oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    hi,
      +1 to patrick's comments plus

    1. I simply don't understand the assertion that because some other
    telcom forums are RAND, this will simplify the operation of the TC.  
    Only Members of the TC may make "contributions" to the TC. Under OASIS
    rules the member making the contribution is asserting that they have the
    right to make that contribution. The other forums are not making the
    contribution as they are not members of the TC. So i can't quite figure
    out how the ipr mode of the TC has any impact.
    Abbie - can you provide a concrete example of how it matters.
    ------- Abbie
    So are you assuming that we will have distinct members. Companies send
    people to more than one SDO and they can contribute per as make sense to
    move the work in harmony. Having a common IPR mode enables better
    cooperation and involvement by Telecom companies. Most telecom companies
    will not participate in a non-RAND TC. In addition, we can have Laision
    arrangements where comon points can be discussed.
    ------------------------------------

    2. The assertion made by the proposers of this TC is you don't have to
    worry because no IPR will be created. Note this is simply an assertion.
    It may or may not be true. We don't know. We will find out at some time
    after the TC approves spec and someone tries to use its output if they
    will be faced with a demand to buy a license.
    It is very easy to turn the argument around. If no ipr is to be created
    than surely there is no reason why it couldn't be chartered under RF on
    Limited terms. Since no one will be contributing any IPR, there won't be
    anything to license. So why can't the proposers stand up and say this in
    a binding way?

    ------- Abbie
    Jeff, I really do not undertand your logic here. You seem to forget that
    most telecom related work in done in RAND bodies. Are you saying that if
    the work is not done on RF on limited terms you will not get a dial tone
    when you lift your receiver???
    ----------------------------------------

    2 notes:
    1. I am using the term create IPR here loosely. What is really meant is
    the specs produced by the TC won't have any Essential Claims owned by
    the members of the TC which would be subject to licensing requirements
    by the owner of the Essential Claim.

    2. I am NOT saying that a RAND TC is always inappropriate. If in fact
    the proposers of a TC do think there will be Essential Claims that read
    on the specs produced by the TC, and that the owners should be allowed
    to charge for those licenses, then it might be appropriate.

    ------- Abbie
    Jeff, not every RAND work lead to royalties. I am glad that you say that
    OASIS can be inclusive. Have a nice day.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    cheers,
      jeff

    On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

    > Abbie,
    >
    > Abbie Barbir wrote:
    >> Patrick
    >> RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
    >> This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with
    >> allowing Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same
    >> environment that they are used to.
    >>
    >>
    > RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although clearly permitted.
    >
    > Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing* if "allowing
    > Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environments that
    > they are used to" isn't marketing.
    >
    > Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom provider in order to
    > get them to participate in OASIS.
    >
    > The work product of the TC appears to not be subject to RAND in any
    > meaningful way.
    >
    > If it were, that would have been your first response.
    >
    > So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth, that RAND is
    > meaningless for requirements and by extension for this TC.
    >
    > Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a strategy?
    >
    > Hope you are having a great day!
    >
    > Patrick
    >
    >
    >
    >> Have a nice day
    >> Regards
    >> Abbie
    >>
    >>
    >>
    Original Message-----

    >> From: Patrick Durusau [
    mailto:patrick@durusau.net] Sent: Wednesday,
    >> November 19, 2008 7:25 PM
    >> To: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
    >> Subject: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
    >>
    >> Greetings!
    >>
    >> The reasons given for RAND for this TC:
    >>
    >> Orit Levin:
    >>
    >>> 1. This TC is NOT going to produce any technical specifications.
    >>> 2. This TC is about gathering requirements backed up by use cases
    >>> and scenarios and their applicability to existing technologies.
    >>> 3. This TC is about bringing as many as possible telecoms and
    >>> vendors working in the Telecom area who feel most comfortable with
    >>> RAND to contribute to the discussion.
    >>>
    >> and, Abbie Barbir:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Plus I would add that we will be dealing with other SDO such as TM
    >>> Forum, ITU-T etc.. and  working closely with them to get
    >>> requirements from their documents. These SDO operate under RAND and
    >>> as such this make the flow of information between the OASIS SOA TC
    >>> and the other SDO more fluid.
    >>>
    >> Seem very unpersuasive to me.
    >>
    >> First, I can't say that I am familiar with the practice of treating
    >> requirements as IPR. Can someone point me to known legal authority
    >> for the notion that a requirement is subject to some vendor's IPR?
    >> (Granting
    >> that if I publish a book with a list of requirements, my statement of

    >> the requirement may be copyrighted, i.e., "Text must be presented in
    >> a
    >> *bold* font." (copyright Patrick Durusau 2008) but the substance of
    >> the requirement itself, that is that users want to use *bold* text, I

    >> don't think is subject to any IPR claim.)
    >>
    >> Second, from what has been said the TC doesn't intend to produce
    >> anything that is subject to any known IPR claim, thereby rendering
    >> RAND rather meaningless.
    >>
    >> Third, following up on Abbie's comment, is making this TC operate
    >> under RAND a marketing strategy to make it more attractive to vendors

    >> who aren't advised well enough to realize that requirements are not
    >> subject to IPR? Or who take false comfort from committees that
    >> operate under RAND?
    >>
    >> While I am all for marketing OASIS as much as the next person I think

    >> offering meaningless RAND on material that cannot be the subject of
    >> IPR is a very bad marketing strategy. What do we say to those vendors

    >> who falsely took our word that the requirements produced by this TC
    >> were subject to RAND? Some dreaded FOSS group implements technology
    >> to meet those requirements more cheaply and efficiently than
    >> commercial vendors.
    >>
    >> Then what do we say? No, let's be honest up front with all our
    >> members, even commercial vendors.
    >>
    >> BTW, I think anyone who charters a TC under RAND should have to
    >> specify what IP is being contributed under what conditions so that
    >> OASIS members can make a determination as to whether they wish to
    >> participate or not. As far as I can tell at this point, neither
    >> Microsoft nor Nortel have any IP as traditionally understood to
    >> contribute to this TC. So, why the RAND? (Other than for false
    >> advertising purposes.)
    >>
    >> Hope everyone is having a great day!
    >>
    >> Patrick
    >>
    >> --
    >> Patrick Durusau
    >> patrick@durusau.net
    >> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
    >> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format
    >> TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1,
    >> 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
    >>
    >>
    >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    >> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    >>
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/
    >> my_workgroups.php
    >>
    >>
    >
    > --
    > Patrick Durusau
    > patrick@durusau.net
    > Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
    > Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC

    > (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1,
    > 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    >
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

    --
    Jeff Mischkinsky
    jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
    Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware
    +1(650)506-1975
                    and Web Services Standards                                                              500
    Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
    Oracle                                                                                                                                        Redwood
    Shores, CA 94065









    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php





  • 8.  RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 11:17
    Patrick,
    
    Well Telecom providers already know what their IPR commitments will be
    if they join this TC.
    It seems to me that you think that they are joining a RAND TC for the
    first time in their lives.
    
    In addition, it seems to me that you think that every RAND work will
    result in royalties. 
    
    If you get over your pre-set opinion/judgment on IPR modes, you can see
    that in order for OASIS to be inclusive, it has to be willing to work
    with companies in the IPR modes that they are comfortable with.
    
    Being deceiving is when you want to paint the world in your own color
    and by refusing to see others points or allow them to work in the IPR
    mode that they are comfortable with.  
    
    Quite frankly, it is totally un-professional of you to accuse people of
    being decieving just because they choose a supported OASIS IPR mode that
    you do not agree with. 
    
    I hope you have a nice day.
    
    Cheers
    Abbie
    
    
    
    
    
    


  • 9.  Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 13:52
    Abbie,
    
    How odd. My "pre-set opinion/judgment on IPR modes?"
    
    My objection was that RAND is *meaningless* for this TC.
    
    Requirements by definition are not subject to RAND. What part of that is 
    unclear?
    
    Your counter is a marketing claim that telecom providers are comfortable 
    with it.
    
    Being inclusive does not mean agreeing to whatever terms some arbitrary 
    proposal makes. Any more than consensus means (in ISO) that if the FOSS 
    community disagrees there isn't consensus. It cuts both ways. Of course 
    OASIS can be inclusive without blindly accepting every TC proposal, of 
    course ISO can have consensus even when the FOSS community disagrees. 
    Neither organization should be held hostage to the views of others, for 
    fear of not being "inclusive" or not having "consensus."
    
    If you and your supporters have some legitimate reason why the RAND mode 
    is applicable to requirements, I am sure there are a number of us who 
    would like to hear it.
    
    Hope you are having a great day!
    
    Patrick
    
    Abbie Barbir wrote:
    > Patrick,
    >
    > Well Telecom providers already know what their IPR commitments will be
    > if they join this TC.
    > It seems to me that you think that they are joining a RAND TC for the
    > first time in their lives.
    >
    > In addition, it seems to me that you think that every RAND work will
    > result in royalties. 
    >
    > If you get over your pre-set opinion/judgment on IPR modes, you can see
    > that in order for OASIS to be inclusive, it has to be willing to work
    > with companies in the IPR modes that they are comfortable with.
    >
    > Being deceiving is when you want to paint the world in your own color
    > and by refusing to see others points or allow them to work in the IPR
    > mode that they are comfortable with.  
    >
    > Quite frankly, it is totally un-professional of you to accuse people of
    > being decieving just because they choose a supported OASIS IPR mode that
    > you do not agree with. 
    >
    > I hope you have a nice day.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Abbie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 


  • 10.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 16:15
    Hi all,
    
    While various philosophical and personal opinions on IPR modes can be
    entertainingly and/or passionately promoted, the OASIS process is pretty
    clear.  OASIS members can either join or not join a proposed TC, and can
    make that decision based on the subject matter, the IPR mode, or any
    other factor.
    
    In this case, several of the TC proposers want to work in the RAND mode,
    and not in the RF mode.   There is no requirement for the IPR mode to be
    explained, although several of the proposers have provided information
    about it.  It really does not matter whether other OASIS members agree
    or not, or whether they feel the reasons are "legitimate."
    
    One of the strengths of OASIS is the freedom for groups of members to
    form TCs to work on areas of interest.  There is no "right of veto" for
    anyone (not the Board of Directors, the Technical Advisory Board, or the
    opinion of other members), as long as the TC follows the process for
    getting started.  
    
    Patrick mentions something about OASIS "accepting" TC proposals.  There
    is no "acceptance" process.  There is an opportunity for members to
    discuss the charter, and that discussion has been taking place on the
    proper mailing list [oasis-charter-discuss], and is now reflected in
    this member-discuss list, which is okay, as long as the message volume
    doesn't get too high.
    
    If an OASIS member does not like the proposed TC, they should not join
    it.  If a member wishes to create a similar TC with a different IPR
    mode, that is certainly their right.  
    
    OASIS is a light-weight "organization for the advancement of structured
    information standards," and I believe most of the members would like to
    focus on their areas of technical interest, rather than trying to
    enforce ideological or business-process conformity on other members.
    
    Kind regards,
    Paul Knight
    Standards Advisor, Nortel Enterprise Solutions, CTO/CSO
    Email     paul.knight@nortel.com
    Telephone +1 978 288 6414 
    Director, Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
    Standards (OASIS)
    OASIS email: paul.knight@oasis-open.org 
    
    
    


  • 11.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 17:52



  • 12.  Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

    Posted 11-20-2008 13:52
    Abbie,
    
    How odd. My "pre-set opinion/judgment on IPR modes?"
    
    My objection was that RAND is *meaningless* for this TC.
    
    Requirements by definition are not subject to RAND. What part of that is 
    unclear?
    
    Your counter is a marketing claim that telecom providers are comfortable 
    with it.
    
    Being inclusive does not mean agreeing to whatever terms some arbitrary 
    proposal makes. Any more than consensus means (in ISO) that if the FOSS 
    community disagrees there isn't consensus. It cuts both ways. Of course 
    OASIS can be inclusive without blindly accepting every TC proposal, of 
    course ISO can have consensus even when the FOSS community disagrees. 
    Neither organization should be held hostage to the views of others, for 
    fear of not being "inclusive" or not having "consensus."
    
    If you and your supporters have some legitimate reason why the RAND mode 
    is applicable to requirements, I am sure there are a number of us who 
    would like to hear it.
    
    Hope you are having a great day!
    
    Patrick
    
    Abbie Barbir wrote:
    > Patrick,
    >
    > Well Telecom providers already know what their IPR commitments will be
    > if they join this TC.
    > It seems to me that you think that they are joining a RAND TC for the
    > first time in their lives.
    >
    > In addition, it seems to me that you think that every RAND work will
    > result in royalties. 
    >
    > If you get over your pre-set opinion/judgment on IPR modes, you can see
    > that in order for OASIS to be inclusive, it has to be willing to work
    > with companies in the IPR modes that they are comfortable with.
    >
    > Being deceiving is when you want to paint the world in your own color
    > and by refusing to see others points or allow them to work in the IPR
    > mode that they are comfortable with.  
    >
    > Quite frankly, it is totally un-professional of you to accuse people of
    > being decieving just because they choose a supported OASIS IPR mode that
    > you do not agree with. 
    >
    > I hope you have a nice day.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Abbie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >