Thanks, everybody, for an interesting and productive meeting! I look
forward to meeting with (most of) you next week, and to reading the
latest revisions of the position papers.
1. Roll call
Bill Burcham YES
Mavis Cournane
Mark Crawford
Fabrice Desr�
John Dumay
Matt Gertner
Arofan Gregory YES
Phil Griffin
Eduardo Gutentag YES
Eve Maler YES
Dale McKay
Joe Moeller
Sue Probert
Ron Schuldt YES
Lisa Seaburg
Gunther Stuhec YES
Paul Thorpe YES
Quorum not reached; proceeded informally.
2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meetings
27 February 2002 telecon:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200202/msg00091.html
6 March 2002 telecon:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200203/msg00004.html
Deferred.
3. Adoption of agenda
Adopted.
4. Current list of remaining work
Report from last week's meeting:
Didn't have quorum or "official" chairs. Focused on elements vs.
attributes. The sense of the informal group was to agree with the
position in the revised position paper.
- Tag structure (Arofan and Mark)
- Elements vs. attributes and empty elements (Gunther)
- How many elements per type and vice versa (Bill)
- Abstract types (Matt)
- modnamver, particularly namespaces and versioning (Bill)
What papers do we want to show them next week?
- Elements vs. attributes and empty elements
- Code lists
- Modnamver
- Tag structure
What things do we want on our agenda at the F2F?
- Group schema code review
- With LCSC: review Ron's native context paper
- With LCSC: role model (how many elements per type and vice versa)
- With LCSC: talk about documentation needs
- With LCSC: how do simple types relate to CC types and RTs?
- Exit criteria for the NDR SC
New ACTION: Eve to revise the tag structure paper, and to *try* to
revise the code list paper to use the same example as is used
in Gunther's paper.
New ACTION: Paper authors to send a revised version of their papers
to the ubl-ndrsc list.
New ACTION: On Sunday, Eve to put all the revised versions onto
the NDR portal, in separate and also .zip format, and send an
announcement to the ubl and ubl-comment lists that it's there;
create a cover document describing them and also describing
other current work that's not ready for review yet; create a few
diskettes containing this stuff.
New ACTION: Eve to prepare a preso on our progress for the F2F.
5. Action item review
ACTION: Arofan and Mark to finish the tag structure paper,
including a proposal for top-level tag naming. Reassigned to Eve.
ACTION: Bill and Mavis to champion the URI/URN issue and determine
an approach. Incorporated into modnamver.
ACTION: Arofan, Tim, Gunther, and Lisa to develop example and code
with LC SC. This example should grow to illustrate the modnamver
proposal. The task of defining a pure example has been reassigned
to Bill, starting with Gunther's existing work.
ACTION: Eve and Dale (and everyone!) to comment on the schema
code produced by Gunther et al. by COB 28 February. Done by Dale.
ACTION: Matt to do a writeup on the "document design time" (fixed
vs. varying) assignment of roles. Deferred.
ACTION: Ron to make a specific proposal on retaining "native
context" of data elements when they are assembled into something
new for the purpose of A2A or B2B integration. To be done in time
for Barcelona attendees to read and digest it. In progress.
ACTION: Eve to check with Bill on "selling" the role model
proposal. Done.
ACTION: All paper owners to make edits March 7-11. Obsoleted.
6. Tag structure
We need to broaden our coverage of "UBL Dictionary Entries" into
a bigger discussion of all the documentation items, where the fully
qualified element paths are the subset of the documentation that
actually make up the data dictionary.
The documentation has to cover at least:
. XSD types (and whether it maps to a CC type)
. Global top-level elements, one per document type
. Local unqualified elements per complex type
. Fully qualified element paths
. Global attributes
. UBL representation terms
. Possibly UBL CC types
. Code lists
Are XSD complex types all object classes? A few of them might
be "mere containers" for XML neatness, but in general, complex
types are indeed object classes. Certainly all object classes
have complex types, whether the object class (which is a BIE)
is an aggregate or basic BIE.
Are XSD local unqualified elements, defined in a complex type,
all properties of their respective object classes? Yes, and
so are XML attributes defined for the type. This suggests a
possible naming rule for attributes (to wit, "Name them the
same way as leaf elements"), but we haven't really agreed to
this yet.
ACTION: Eve to add this as a proposed rule to the next revision
of the tag structure paper.
What is the relationship of XSD simple types to the CC universe?
CC semantic primitives are actually complex types in our world;
often you need a whole cluster of data to provide the necessary
information. The CC work never gets as far down in their modeling
activity as structural primitives. (Note that CC types are
structural and representation terms are semantic -- almost like
roles!)
7. Adjourn
Adjourned y:50.
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com