The resolution TBG3 propose
to the CEFACT Forum is..
TBG3
has acknowledged the
release of UBL 2.0 published for a second public review period and is
disappointed that a number of fundamental issues raised by TBG3 at the
January 2006 first review period, are still pending for consideration
within the next UBL 3.0 release. TBG 3 will only be able to concur with
the Transport related parts of any UBL releases provided that the
requirements of TBG3 are fulfilled in terms of the consistency between
UBL business processes and data models and the TBG3/UNeDocs BRS and
Core Components data model. TBG3 resolves to invite the UBL-TSC to
participate in its work and TBG3 will communicate any deliverables
produced to UBL.
As discussed on today's call we propose to send an email to Dominique
Vankemmel (the Chair of TBG3) and Henk Van Maaran (the Vice Chair)
explaining our situation. My first draft at this 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 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. This means the UBL Transportation Subcommittee
intends to collaborate with TBG3 on all future developments.
<>
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 meeting
very seriously. Whilst we do not believe we have acted incorrectly in
these matters, we do believe we have failed to communicate our
intentions
accurately. For this we apologise.
Can we all review this text urgently and send comments to Kama so we
can get this out on Friday.
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath