MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 13|14 February 2006
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING
00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2006
ATTENDANCE
Jon Bosak (chair)
Stephen Green
G. Ken Holman
Tim McGrath (vice chair)
Andy Schoka
Kumar Sivaraman
Sylvia Webb
STANDING ITEMS
Additions to the calendar:
http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm
None.
Liaison report: Tax XML TC
SW: The TC is meeting in london next week, but I cannot
attend.
Liaison report: ebBP TC
SG: Can we publish the BPSS definitions for UBL separately
from the SBS? The definitions allow implementation of UBL
in an ebXML framework; each UBL doc has one or more
processes associated with it, and vice versa. The
definitions for 1.0 are in the UBL 1.0 SBS package, but now
they've become a deliverable in their own right.
AGREED (pending concurrence by the Atlantic call) to publish
the BPSS process definitions for UBL as a separate
specification.
Subcommittee report: SBSC
SG: Nothing new to report. Will take the ebBP work [above]
into SBSC; have pretty much everything needed for 2.0 SBS,
and have already published a worst-case version that could
be used if we do nothing else.
Liaison report: UN/CEFACT
JB: The conference call formerly scheduled for 3/16 is being
rescheduled.
Liaison report: X12 meeting in Seattle
KS: Dick Raman spoke; there was much talk about
harmonization, but nothing specific. COTG is being renamed
the "Harmonization and Outreach Task Group." X12 has given
up on convergence and is now just trying for semantic
harmonization. The main X12 activities are now in
healthcare and insurance. There are opportunities for
harmonization in other industry segments.
SW: There was discussion of X12 replacing the existing
repository with an ebXML repository. Also a high level
discussion of how X12 could use the TBG17 library and CCTS
methodology. Dan Kazzaz will be speaking in Vancouver.
KS/SW: X12 membership is increasing; attendance at the
meeting was 527+.
Subcommittee report: HISC
GKH: Call tomorrow; trying to determine how much more we can
do beyond the eight UBL 1.0 docs.
Team report: Code Lists
GKH: About to send results of analysis; have determined
algorithmically that there are about 6 types and info items
that are not used in UBL. Plugging away on generation of
empty gc files for all of the code lists, plus one
association file for each doc and one across all docs. Lots
of calculation. The code list proposal is gaining quite a
bit of traction on xml-dev; insurance and mortgage think
they could use our approach. TonyC has given permission to
include 0.3 gc in the Code List spec.
Subcommittee report: PSC
SW: In a holding pattern, PB on vacation next week. We will
start looking at his work next week.
Subcommittee report: TSC
AS: We're developing some text-based use case descriptions
for transport messages that may provide a prototype for how
to define messages; our next meeting is this week. Also, we
recognize that the issues list is something the TSC should
be keeping an eye on in deciding what needs to be attended
to following the public review.
TM: Some of the isses are questions rather than comments;
there's no way to log questions separate from comments.
AS: For example, "How do we get clarification on..."
JB: I consider most requests for clarification to be
comments to the effect that we haven't explained something
adequately. E.g., "Issue: it's not clear why..." or "It's
not clear how..." The TSC and PSC are expected to be
monitoring the issues list and starting work on resolving
the issues, including going back to the submitters and
asking for further details. From the meeting in Manhattan:
AGREED that we will password-protect the issues input
form (TC members can use the form, but all others must
use the OASIS public comment form). There will be a
column/field for category (NDR, PSC, TSC, HISC, SBS1,
SBS2, Code lists) and another one for priority (bug,
missing functionality, new requirements (RFEs)). We will
try to process issues as they come in, with those clearly
belonging to PSC handled by PSC, etc., and preliminary
dispositions recorded in a separate resolution list.
But questions needing clarification before the review can
continue pose a special problem.
AGREED that requests for clarification from the USDOT will
be collated and forwarded by AS to the appropriate SC.
AGREED (pending concurrence in the Atlantic call) that SG
will fill the position of Inquiry Coordinator so that
questions submitted during the review period get forwarded
to the appropriate SC or the TC as a whole.
Review of Atlantic call
JB: Apologies for not having the Atlantic minutes done yet.
Schedule review
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00016.html
SG: Given the scheduling of the Brussels F2F, we will have
to be generating schemas right at the meeting.
BRUSSELS F2F
We reviewed mail received regarding preferences for the meeting
in Brussels.
AGREED (pending concurrence in the Atlantic call) to go with
the week of 22 May 2006 at CEN/CENELEC in Brussels.
TM/GKH: This means that we will have to wind up all the
post-review processing and actually start generating schemas at
that meeting. Finalization of the code lists also depends on
final schemas.
SW: We can't get new schemas till we get the [revised] NDR, and
there's a good possibility that with the decision to not adopt
ATG2 NDR, we will have more than a few minor bug fixes. We are
missing rules for UBL to implement the ATG2 schema module; if
we're using ATG2 rules, then TSC and PSC will have to redesign
their messages to comply with those rules. (ACTION: SW to send
a pointer to the ATG rules on UDTs, QDTs, and code lists.) UBL
needs to create its own set of NDRs to cover those points
listed in email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00042.html
Until this is resolved, GEFEG is very worried about meeting the
schedule.
(Discussion continues below under CODE LIST DECLARATIONS)
TAX CERTIFICATION
How do we go about obtaining "accreditation" from local tax agencies?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00017.html
SW: ML will be attending a Tax XML meeting to discuss this.
JB: So let's see what looks possible.
UUID, GUID, OID, UID
See
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00026.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00028.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00029.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00030.html
JB: The suggestion is to just adopt "UID."
SG/TM: That's what we meant; not a standard UUID or GUID, just
something that was globally unique within a given
implementation.
AGREED (pending concurrence in the Atlantic call) to change
GUID to UID and make the definition for UID the one that's
currently given for GUID.
CODE LIST DECLARATIONS
See
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00032.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00033.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00034.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00035.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00036.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00037.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00038.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00039.html
We note that TonyC and MartyB were assigned the task of writing
the NDRs for code lists. This must be added to the NDR items
of work.
A long, confused discussion took place in which the following
points became more or less clear:
- We don't need rules that tell people how to implement the
ATG rules, because we're not adopting the ATG methodology,
just the schemas. We don't want to generate the ATG code
list schemas, we just want to import them.
- This presents a problem for FX (nee EDIFIX) because the ATG
code list schemas are generated from the ATG data models
based on the ATG NDRs; the version of FX that's programmed
to support UBL doesn't know how to just import a given
schema.
- We must minute the position that we don't want rules to
execute the UDT, we just want to import the schema at schema
generation time. That is, by our decision in Manhattan
stated as "AGREED that in the interests of convergence we
will stand by our decision to import the ATG2 UDT, etc." we
need to add that this does NOT mean that we are going to
apply the ATG2 RULES (in which case we may need more rules
to cover this).
- The current SDT is actually UBL's QDT. It is possible that
at some point we will have to handcraft a QDT for UBL.
ACTION: JB to put the issue on this week's Atlantic agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS
AGREED that the PSC and TSC should review each other's data
models. ACTION: TM to suggest this to the two SCs.
AGREED that the code list package currently under construction
will initially be based on the schemas in the PRD.
Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]