[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Outcomes of coordination call 19 December 2003
SUMMARY
We spent most of the call 19 December working on code list
ownership and the submission of UBL to TBG17. CHAIRS: See
"Administrivia" below.
PRESENT
Jon Bosak (chair)
Mark Crawford
Stephen Green
Anne Hendry
Ken Holman
Sue Probert
ABSENT
Bill Meadows
Eduardo Gutentag
Lisa Seaburg
Marion Royal
Mavis Cournane
Tim McGrath
EXCUSED
Noboruh Itoh
Yukinori Saito
Patrick Yee
William Chan
ADMINISTRIVIA
I'm still missing scheduling information from Gunther Stuhec
and Yukinori Saito.
The only way I can see to solve the time-zone problem is to
hold separate Atlantic and Pacific coordination calls. There
will be an initial one-time Pacific coord call to discuss
localization issues at this time:
17h00 Mon 2004.01.12 in California
09h00 Tue 2004.01.13 in Hong Kong, Beijing, and Perth
10h00 Tue 2004.01.13 in Tokyo and Seoul
We will be using the usual UBL number:
#############################################
STANDING INFORMATION FOR UBL CONFERENCE CALLS
U.S. domestic toll-free number: (866)839-8145
Int. access/caller paid number: (865)524-6352
Access code: 5705229
#############################################
We have not yet settled on regular times for either the
Atlantic or Pacific calls, but the times that are starting to
look most likely in the future are 16h00-17h00 California time
on Mondays or Thursdays for the Pacific call and one of the
slots starting at 11h00 or 12h00 California time on Mondays for
the Atlantic call. I am inclined to favor a schedule that
would put the Atlantic call on Monday middays in California and
the Pacific call on late Monday afternoons in California
(Tuesday morning in Asia), the idea being that I could have the
outcomes of the Atlantic meeting ready as input to the Pacific
meeting a few hours later. For now, however, all the
coordination calls are still scheduled for 07h00 California
time on Fridays, with the next one taking place 9 January, Mark
Crawford chairing.
=============================================
ISSUES ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING (12/19)
=============================================
2003-1212-01 Code list ownership clarification
Issue
Code list ownership (mechanism, population, identification)
needs clarification.
Status (2003.12.19)
We need to make sure that we are in complete agreement on
what needs to be done and who's responsible for doing it.
Outcomes (2003.12.19)
We think that this describes how it's going to work:
- LCSC produces the code list catalogue that identifies
which code lists need to be included in UBL and provides
the enumerated values that will be used to populate the
code lists.
- CLSC develops:
- A standard data model, expressed in prose, for the
code lists to be used in UBL; we hope that this model
will be adopted outside of UBL as well, but its basic
requirement is to accommodate the code lists in the
UBL code list catalogue and the values provided by LC.
- An XSD realization of this data model constructed
according to schema naming and design rules specified
by NDRSC but lacking any actual code list enumeration;
call this a "code list template."
- NDR checks the code list template against the UBL naming
and design rules and returns an approved code list
template back to CLSC for inclusion in the UBL Code List
technical specification.
- TTSC instantiates the code lists in the LCSC catalogue by
generating schemas that incorporate the values provided
by LCSC in the format defined by CLSC as approved by
NDRSC.
Issues carried forward (2003.12.19)
- We need to reach out to external code list agencies to work
with us; could this be a job for the Liaison SC? For the
MoU/MG?
- We need to address the question of conformance testing
criteria.
- CLSC is still debating whether the W3C Schema expressions
should be a normative annex or a sibling chapter to the data
model. We want to promote the UBL Code List technical
specification to other technical non-XML domains
(e.g. database implementations of code lists) and not give
the impression that it is solely for W3C Schema
implementations.
- The methodology for extending/customizing code lists is
still undefined. We want users to be able to modify the
code lists, but sentiment appears to be leaning toward the
view that any change to a code list means, in effect, that
the UBL schema that references the code list is actually a
different schema. This raises the question of what it means
to be compliant. One position (upon which at least Ken and
Jon agreed during the call) is that we specify the template
and the method for unique identification using namespace
URIs, and that's the end of UBL's responsibility in this
area. The URI specification policy could be a work item for
CLSC. But at this point, ownership of the code list
customization and deployment methodology/guidelines is still
a coordination issue.
2003-1212-02 Schema compliance to NDRs
Issue
We need an owner for "review of schemas to ensure they
conform to NDR rules."
Outcomes (2003.12.12)
The responsibility for reviewing the schemas for NDR
compliance clearly belongs to NDR. The key questions are:
1. Who in the NDRSC is actually responsible for doing
this?
2. How far are they empowered to make judgements on their
own? To put it another way: how and when do they
escalate resolution on particular points to a larger
group?
Assignments (2003.12.12)
- NDRSC to identify and empower someone willing and able to
perform the NDR compliance function (or report that we
have a resource problem).
- NDRSC to specify an escalation plan for rule
interpretation and conflict resolution.
Outcomes (2003.12.19)
This did get discussed during the NDRSC meeting 17 December,
and I was supposed to copy the decision arrived at into the
coordination issues list at this point, but I can't find a
copy of the NDR minutes for that date.
2003-1212-04 RosettaNet NDR input
Issue
We have in hand a set of suggested revisions to the UBL NDRs
submitted by RosettaNet in early September:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-lsc/200309/msg00002.html
We also have the latest RosettaNet NDRs:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200312/msg00010.html
We need to figure out how we are going to handle these inputs.
Status
See
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200312/msg00002.html
The basic problem here is that the comments were received
several months too late to be considered in the discussions
of NDRs for UBL 1.0. Now the question is: what (if
anything) can be done to promote convergence at this late
date?
Outcomes (2003.12.12)
The coordination call didn't come to any conclusion about
this, so we'll need to carry it forward. Here is what I
think we need to know in order to arrive at some kind of
decision:
For each area of difference identified in the September
document from RosettaNet:
- Does this still apply to the final NDRs?
- If so, do we agree with the suggested change in
principle?
- If we do, what would be the practical impact of
changing UBL NDRs to align with the RosettaNet
suggestion in UBL 1.0 FCS?
Without this analysis, I don't think we can do anything but
say "Sorry, too late."
Assignment
We didn't get this far in the call 2003.12.12, but I think
the implicit assignment is to NDRSC to tell us whether there
are the resources available to perform the gap analysis
outlined above.
Outcome (2003.12.19)
I can't find the NDRSC minutes for 12/17.
2003-1212-05 Achieving final CCTS alignment
Issue
There seems to be some disagreement about whether we're
actually in alignment with CCTS.
Outcomes (2003.12.12)
- The burden of CCTS compliance lies entirely with LCSC. This
is not a coordination issue.
- The beta version does not use any UBL defined CCTS
datatypes, so this is not yet even an LCSC issue. However,
this has been identified as a key area for CCTS alignment
and in SFO LCSC agreed to review this issue. It is hoped
that whatever the outcome, our NDRs already cover how to
deal with it.
- TTSC had some concerns that CCTS was a moving target. It
seems that this is not true; CCTS 2.01 appears to be quite
stable.
- TTSC also has some concerns about possible ambiguities and
areas of the CCTS that may need interpretation. We
identified Sue Probert as our liaison in these cases.
Outcomes (2003.12.19 and later)
Marion Royal has been appointed the UBL liaison to TBG17,
and Stig Korsgaard has been appointed TBG17 liaison to UBL.
This issue will be retired on the expectation that further
developments will be handled through the liaisons.
2003-1212-06 Submission of UBL semantics to TBG17
Issues
- Managing relationship/coordination
- Formal contribution of our semantics
Status (2003.12.12)
TBG17 has received eight or nine submissions, all featuring
different implementations of the CCTS rules. A TBG17 group
is now working to produce a set of rules for submission
formats. When those are released, UBL will be in catch-up
mode along with the other submitters.
Outcomes (2003.12.12)
- We are waiting on TBG17 for submission guidelines.
- We should expect the input we need to make a submission in
January. The worst case will be if the guidelines are not
finished until after the TBG17 meeting 9 February. But if
the guidelines are published in January as expected, we will
have a submission deadline of 2 February.
- Sue Probert bears responsibility for keeping us informed.
UBL is covered for right now.
- LCSC is responsible for making the submission, so this is
not a coordination issue.
- But liaison with TBG17 is a coordination issue. We need to
appoint a liaison from UBL to TBG17. Marion Royal is
willing to serve in this capacity.
Assignments (2003.12.19)
- Jon Bosak to fill out the table in the TBG17 form and submit
to TBG17. [done]
Outcomes (2003.12.19 and later)
See 2003-1212-05 outcomes for 2003.12.19 and later. This
issue will be retired pending further developments.
==================================
ISSUES THAT CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD
==================================
2003-1212-03 Schema validation
Issue
We need a clear assignment of responsibility for validating
schemas and example instances using various XSD validators
every time the schemas are modified.
Assignment (2003.12.12)
TTSC to decide which validators shall be considered
authoritative (there should be several) and to fix the
responsibility for (1) running validation checks using these
validators after each build and (2) reporting to the TC that
the build has successfully passed all the checks.
2003-1212-07 Schema generation
Issue
I think this refers to the whole question of who's
responsible for what going into the next build cycle. But I
could be wrong; it's Tim's item.
2003-1212-08 NDR document
Issues
- Publication/feedback schedule
- Effect of changes on Beta -> FCS
2003-1212-09 Beta/FCS diff tracking
Issue
How to maintain and communicate thoroughly detailed diffs of
changes between Beta and FCS for input to the UBL
localization SCs and early implementers
2003-1212-10 Populating the OASIS Registry with UBL artifacts
Issues
- What is needed
- Who can do it
- Deadline 15 January
Background
See the thread beginning at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-csc/200312/msg00028.html
And further input at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-csc/200312/msg00055.html
2003-1212-11 UBL compliance
Issue
What does it mean to be "UBL compliant"?
Status
TTSC (which must answer this question for practical reasons)
is beginning to analyze the issue and is in the process of
producing some use cases for further discussion. I have
forwarded their latest thinking on this in separate mail to
the TC list. But the question cuts across CMSC, LCSC, CLSC,
and NDRSC, and therefore its resolution is a coordination
issue.
Background
See the TTSC preliminary analysis of use cases:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200312/msg00036.html
And the 1.0 Beta "Guidelines For The Customization of UBL
Schemas":
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/lcsc/UBLv1-beta/cm/wd-cmsc-cmguidelines-1.0-beta.html
A paper written by the late Michael Adcock is also felt to
be relevant to this discussion:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/ubl-lcsc/download.php/4364/Context_NewPaper.doc
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]