Hello UBL 2.1 content providers, I'm pleased to report completion of a first editorial review of the definitions contained in the data models for the 66 document types in UBL 2.1 PRD3. You can find the result at
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/download.php/46153 As you will see, I have prepared a set of spreadsheets optimized for your review of this work. In each spreadsheet, columns A-C contain the current UBL Name, Dictionary Entry Name, and Definition for each row in the existing document model. Columns E and F likewise duplicate the existing entries for Associated Object Class (to aid reference to the common library) and Cardinality. All other columns in the current models have been stripped out to promote focus on the definitions. (Network latency made it impractical to edit the models in eDoCreator. We will use scripts to repopulate the models themselves after all work on the definitions is done. To facilitate this operation and avoid conversion problems, please use OpenOffice for all further work on these spreadsheets.) Column D contains revised versions of most of the previous definitions. The majority of the changes are purely editorial: capitalization (in general, only document names are capitalized), elimination of double spaces, consistent punctuation, and so on. In many cases, definitions for semantically identical items have been regularized to make translation easier. All of these revised definitions will need to be reviewed by the responsible content teams to ensure that I have not introduced an error in the process of revision. In addition to these (hopefully) uncontroversial and mechanical changes, however, there are several items per spreadsheet for which further discussion is needed. These items are flagged by queries in column G of each spreadsheet. For each query, a response is required in column H before we can finalize the definition for that item. And this will require the attention of the content team responsible for the document. The tasks I request of PSC and TSC to begin with, therefore, are as follows: 1. Assign responsible reviewers for each document type originating in your subcommittee and prepare a list of these assignments so that we can ensure that all documents have been assigned reviewers. 2. Set a deadline for completion of an initial review by each team so that we can begin to define a schedule for this work. 3. Collect any questions or feedback regarding the task as a whole for discussion by the TC. 4. Consider the following separate message regarding "global replacements" and prepare a response. This item should be completed before any other editorial work is undertaken. I would appreciate it if these initial steps could be completed by the week of 18 June. For personal reasons, I will be probably be cancelling TC calls the week of 11 June, so it would be good to use our TC calls the week of 18 June to discuss scheduling and actually begin work in the content teams. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC