OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) TC

 View Only

AW: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))

  • 1.  AW: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))

    Posted 07-05-2004 14:24
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ubl message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: AW: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))


    Sorry, my understanding is that the draft ACCs were approved as Draft ACC.
    1-cent
    
    -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
    Von: Stig Korsgaard [mailto:STK@Finansraadet.dk]
    Gesendet: Montag, 5. Juli 2004 16:17
    An: Michael Dill; Tim McGrath; MCRAWFORD@lmi.org; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
    Betreff: RE: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs
    (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))
    
    
    Ok, here is my 2-cent opinion:
     
    Mark is correct in pointing out the issues with the current UBL Library in
    relation to applying CCTS and the missing CC�s.
     
    Tim is correct that there is a cooperation with UBL and TBG17, and this
    should work in the way that UBL uses CCTS to build its library, it uses
    TBG17 SGP and submission form to submit to TBG17, and TBG17 gives back the
    result which UBL implements. If not, well I agree with Sue, that then there
    is not much point in the exercise.
     
    Michael is not correct in that the first draft ACC�s has been TBG approved,
    but they hopefully will by Washington. For SGP this is also true!
     
    In summary:
    Could the current UBL Library be better in relation to compliance with CCTS?
    - Yes!
     
    Will we soon have CC�s to work with? - Yes!
     
    Will TBG17 respond to the UBL submission? - Yes?
     
    Will UBL comply with the response and feedback? - That is left to be seen!
     
    But one thing is for sure: There is no reason, no point, no resources and no
    way that UBL should keep a separate track nor even begin to consider being a
    full-time proprietary standards organisation in the area of data
    definitions, maintenance, etc. There are more than enough of those.
    
    Best Regards 
    
    Stig Korsgaard 
    M.Sc.E Standardisation Manager 
    Tel:    +45 3370 1083 
    Cell:   +45 2725 9083 
    Mail:   stk@finansraadet.dk 
    
    Danish Bankers Association 
    Amaliegade 7 
    DK-1256 Copenhagen K 
    Tel:    3370 1000 
    Fax:    3393 0260 
    mail@finansraadet.dk 
    www.finansraadet.dk