Fwd: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004

[Mark Palmer <mark.palmer@nist.gov>]

CLSC:

Re:  
  "a) SP raised the issue that we probably need to clarify to
what extent, if 
any, our work can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed and
reported that lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call to
use the same code list 
methodology as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed and
amended 
where necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft statement and
circulate this in the first instance to the co-chairs."

If the work of the CLSC is not being considered for UBL 1.0, what is the
avenue for it's inclusion?

Will this topic be carried forward to the UBL plenary later this
month?

Has anyone seen a schedule for the UBL meeting Feb 23-27 at LMI in
McLean, VA and will there be a meeting of the CLSC with the LCSC? 
If you have the schedule, please forward it.

--Mark Palmer  (just an observer in CLSC)


> From: "Sue Probert"
> <sue.probert@dial.pipex.com>
> To: <ubl-clsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:52:36 -0000
> Subject: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004
>
> Dear all
>
> As there were only three people for most of the call today I noted
> the
> following informal minutes from today's call.
>
> Present:
> Sue Probert (chair)
> Anne Hendry
> Paul Spencer
> Marty Burns (last half hour)
>
> Regrets:
> Ken Holman
> Mavis Cournane
> Michael Dill
>
> Agenda:
> 1/ Review of Action List:
> TC/MHC?: To send information to MD
> MB: To modify document to cover agreed empty code list decision
> PS: to provide his new requirements in a list to the CLSC list for
> inclusion in the Requirements document
>
> 2/ Review of document status and timescales
>
> 3/ AOB
>
> Minutes:
>
> 1/ There are three remaining editing tasks to complete the
> Requirements
> section:
> a) MB has sent Word formatted version of the latest draft to TC and
> is
> awaiting his edits. MB will ask TC when this will be available.
> b) PS has sent his input to MB. MB to complete editing in these points
> asap.
> c) SP raised whether the name datamodel in the context of our document
> could
> be renamed metamodel to differentiate this from business data models.
> MB
> proposed that some wording changes could be introduced to clarify
> this
> difference. MB to propose changed text.
>
> 2/ MB will hopefully be able to complete the editing ready for
> internal
> circulation of teh Requirements Section in time for it to be discussed
> and
> hopefully approved on next week's call. The next stage following SC
> approval
> will be to send this to the csc for eliciting comments from the other
> scs.
>
> 3/ AOB
>
> a) SP raised the issue that we probably need to clarify to what extent,
> if
> any, our work can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed
> and
> reported that lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call to use the same code
> list
> methodology as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed and
> amended
> where necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft statement
> and
> circulate this in the first instance to the co-chairs.
>
> b) SP, on behalf of CN, aske MB whether he had been able to follow up
> with
> Mark Palmer with regards to input to the document. MB is to see MP
> tomorrow
> and following that he agreed to update the group with the latest
> situation.
>
> regards
>
> Sue

Mark E. Palmer
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8630
Gaithersburg, MD  20899
USA

email: mark.palmer@nist.gov
tel: 301-975-5858
fax: 301-975-5433