Thanks to Andy and Dave we have a response that if Kama is happy with
he can send out today (as chair of the UBL TSC). Its possible at least
someone might read this before the meeting in New Delhi.
The distribution list should be to Dominique
Vankemmel (dvankemmel@wanadoo.fr) and Henk Van Maaran
(hvmaaren@cetima.nl) and also a copy to Jean-Luc Champion
(Jean_Luc_Champion@yahoo.com) and Mark Palmer (mark.palmer@nist.gov).
Kama let me know if you need anything else.
The Subject line is...
Response to TBG3's Resolution 3 from the UBL Transportation Subcommitee.
The revised text is...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UBL Transportation Subcommittee is surprised and also disappointed
that we have failed to communicate our intention with regard to
accommodating the concerns of TBG3 following the recent public review
of UBL version 2.0. Given our limited time and resources we have had
to restrict the scope of the business processes covered by UBL 2.0.
This is not to say we do not recognize the limitations TBG3 have
identified, only that we could not address them in a meaningful way in
time to meet the UBL 2.0 schedule. In fact, UBL version 2.0 is now
completed and currently being ratified by OASIS, to be published in
December 2006.
It is regrettable but true that the participants in the UBL
Transportation Subcommittee are self funded and so attending
face-to-face meetings is not always feasible. This has been
unfortunate. For example, had UBL been able to participate in the
recent Barcelona meeting of TBG3 we might have avoided such a
misunderstanding of our intentions.
Be assured, UBL is committed to moving its work into CEFACT. We
believe we have a formal agreement with the CEFACT Plenary to do this.
Accordingly, the UBL Transportation Subcommittee is committed to
working collaboratively with TBG3 on future developments, and wishes to
work together to find constructive ways to do so given the practical
difficulties of face-to-face meetings.
One such development could be the extension and refinement of the
Transportation Status document. This appears to be a worthwhile task
that would allow us to take an existing UBL document together with
implementation experience from the US Dept. of Transport's EFM project
and develop both a business process and data model consistent with both
TBG3 and UN/eDocs. The resulting artifacts can then be submitted as
UN/CEFACT deliverables. Such a work programme mirrors a similar
collaboration between UBL and TBG1.
To conclude, the UBL Transportation Subcommittee takes Resolution 3
from your Barcelona meeting very seriously. Whilst we do not believe
we have acted incorrectly in these matters, we do believe a more
proactive approach in communicating our intentions accurately is
essential.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath