If I left that impression, then I appologize.
What I was trying to convey is that if there are
concerns regarding what is (or is not) normatively defined as
core and optional that they should be discussed
and voted upon within the MSG TC, not IIC.
Cheers,
Chris
Philippe De Smedt wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> I'd like to chime in on the issue of prerogatives. As Jacques said, the
> ebXML IIC TC has no intention of challenging the Messaging TC's (or
> anyone else's) right to define what they see fit. However, the IIC TC
> was created with the explicit charter to issue opinions and provide
> advice on conformance (hence the 'C' in IIC), so I find it rather
> unfortunate that the work that the IIC TC is doing is now
> being characterized as infringing on another TC's prerogatives. No
> issues of that nature were raised when the IIC TC's charter was proposed
> and voted on.
>
>
>
> That said, a number of members of the IIC TC are indeed already members
> of the Messaging (and other) TCs, and have substantially contributed to
> the creation of the specifications. We also have established formal
> liaisons with those TCs. David Fischer is the liaison with the Messaging
> TC, so we do have the mechanisms in place to have everybody heard and to
> share opinions. If it is the Messaging TC's opinion that the IIC TC is
> infringing on their work, I'd like to hear it and discuss it, but as far
> as I'm concerned, the IIC TC is not doing anything outside of the
> boundaries of its charter.
>
>
>
> -Philippe
>
>
>
> chair, ebXML Implementation, Interoperability, and Conformance TC
>
>
>