OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) TC

> Why is there talk about submissions?

Because that's what they're called.  A submission is something
submitted; in this context, to submit is "a: to send or commit for
consideration, study, or decision: REFER" (example: "submit a
question to the court"), or "b: to present or make available for
use or study" (example: "submit a report") -- Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, Unabridged.

I am aware that some in OASIS consider "submission" a synonym for
"contribution."  That's now how it's being used in the groups that
the UBL TC deals with, and the association with a transfer of
intellectual property is not supported by any of the dictionaries
of English that I own, which, as you know, is quite a few.

As far as I can tell, OASIS is alone in attaching the concept of
intellectual property ownership to the word "submission."  As we
have no other mutually understood English word to describe what
we're doing in "presenting or making available" the results of our
work "for use or study" by TBG17, my advice to OASIS is to get
over it.

Jon

Jon,

we have no disagreement as to the meaning of the word submission; in
this context, it obviously means "to make available for use", as in
your quote below from the b: definition in Webster.

However, the fact that a word has certain inescapable connotations
and/or consequences cannot be denied just because a dictionary entry
does not, properly, include them in the definition.

Looking at Webster's definition of "accident", for instance [1], does
not bring up the word insurance, nor does it bring up the possibility
of loss of limb or life as a consequence of an accident. This does
not mean however (at least to me, and I bet to you too) that it would
be prudent to drive a car with no insurance in a careless manner just
because the dictionary does not mention some of the possible
consequences of a car accident.

Similarly, just because the definition of the word "submission" does
not include a reference to possible IP transfer of ownership does not
mean such transfer is not a possible consequence of such submission.

If you look at how a PAS Submission at ISO or a Member Submission at
W3C are formally structured, you will see that they definitely have
IP connotations as to the subsequent IP ownership of the submission
once it's accepted (which, by the way, suggests to me that the
difference between a submission and a contribution is that a
contribution is what a submission becomes once it is accepted; but
one could also argue that there is not a whole lot of a difference,
since at least one definition of "contribute" is "to *submit*
articles for publication" [2]).

So I think it's quite incorrect to say that "OASIS is alone in
attaching the concept of IP ownership to the word submission". It's
simply not so.

What a TC produces is IP; to make it available for use by others
inherently transfers that IP to the others unless it's done in the
proper manner; and the proper manner in OASIS is either for OASIS
Staff to formally submit it to a third party (as in the case of an
ISO PAS submission) with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed as
regards the submission's IP, or for the TC to publish it in the OASIS
site with the prescribed copyright notice, from where a third party
can pluck it at will but under the obligations spelled out by the
OASIS copyright notice. What is not acceptable is for a TC vice-chair
to submit OASIS material to a third party for their indiscriminate
use.  The last time this happened the third party simply used it with
no acknowledgment of the TC's or OASIS's part in its creation, and
with no carrying forward of OASIS's copyright. And that is just
wrong.

[1] I'm traveling, so I have no access to a printed copy of a dictionary;
thus I'm constrained to quote from Webster's online definition:

1 a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b: lack of
intention or necessity : chance 

i fully understand Eduardo's concerns and do try to not use this term - 
but everyone else we deal with uses it as Jon indicated.  Where forced 
(with UN/CEFACT) i try to ensure that it is understood we are not giving 
them anything.

thanks for raising this (again) as it is important we keep these 
distinctions clear.

Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
> Jon,
>
> we have no disagreement as to the meaning of the word submission; in
> this context, it obviously means "to make available for use", as in
> your quote below from the b: definition in Webster.
>
> However, the fact that a word has certain inescapable connotations
> and/or consequences cannot be denied just because a dictionary entry
> does not, properly, include them in the definition.
>
> Looking at Webster's definition of "accident", for instance [1], does
> not bring up the word insurance, nor does it bring up the possibility
> of loss of limb or life as a consequence of an accident. This does
> not mean however (at least to me, and I bet to you too) that it would
> be prudent to drive a car with no insurance in a careless manner just
> because the dictionary does not mention some of the possible
> consequences of a car accident.
>
> Similarly, just because the definition of the word "submission" does
> not include a reference to possible IP transfer of ownership does not
> mean such transfer is not a possible consequence of such submission.
>
> If you look at how a PAS Submission at ISO or a Member Submission at
> W3C are formally structured, you will see that they definitely have
> IP connotations as to the subsequent IP ownership of the submission
> once it's accepted (which, by the way, suggests to me that the
> difference between a submission and a contribution is that a
> contribution is what a submission becomes once it is accepted; but
> one could also argue that there is not a whole lot of a difference,
> since at least one definition of "contribute" is "to *submit*
> articles for publication" [2]).
>
> So I think it's quite incorrect to say that "OASIS is alone in
> attaching the concept of IP ownership to the word submission". It's
> simply not so.
>
> What a TC produces is IP; to make it available for use by others
> inherently transfers that IP to the others unless it's done in the
> proper manner; and the proper manner in OASIS is either for OASIS
> Staff to formally submit it to a third party (as in the case of an
> ISO PAS submission) with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed as
> regards the submission's IP, or for the TC to publish it in the OASIS
> site with the prescribed copyright notice, from where a third party
> can pluck it at will but under the obligations spelled out by the
> OASIS copyright notice. What is not acceptable is for a TC vice-chair
> to submit OASIS material to a third party for their indiscriminate
> use.  The last time this happened the third party simply used it with
> no acknowledgment of the TC's or OASIS's part in its creation, and
> with no carrying forward of OASIS's copyright. And that is just
> wrong.
>
> [1] I'm traveling, so I have no access to a printed copy of a dictionary;
> thus I'm constrained to quote from Webster's online definition:
>
> 1 a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b: lack of
> intention or necessity : chance