Re: [ubl-dev] UBL Adoption Group?

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

I have no opinion on the possible formation of a UBL member
section, but I would like to clarify a couple of points that have
arisen in the course of this discussion.

[roberto@javest.com:]

> That is because UBL should stop at 2.0 within OASIS, isn't it ?

The agreement with UN/CEFACT states that the UBL TC will not
develop another *major* version (e.g., 3.0) within three years of
March 2006.  That agreement still has about two years to run.  We
made it clear in the discussions leading up to the agreement that
the TC would continue to maintain UBL 2 by working on *minor*
versions (e.g., 2.1) in order to add functionality needed by UBL
adopters.  A minor version is (by definition) one specified by
schemas against which instances conforming to a previous version
within the same major version cycle will continue to validate.
So, for example, any valid UBL 2.0 invoice will (by definition)
continue to validate against a UBL 2.1 invoice schema.  One
consequence of this is that the current UBL Naming and Design Rules
will remain essentially unchanged for the next several years.

We're currently focusing on the creation of support materials to
aid UBL 2.0 implementers and are at the very beginning of a UBL
2.1 development cycle that should deliver that update in a year or
so.  People interested in providing requirements to that process
should join the UBL TC.

> Also we do not have an LSC for each country/language yet.

True.  So far we have LSCs for:

   China (Simplified and Traditional Chinese)
   Denmark (Danish)
   Italy (Italian)
   Japan (Japanese)
   Korea (Korean)
   Spain (Castilian)

Anyone representing a group of business experts qualified to
create translations of the business terms defined by UBL 2 in some
language other than the ones listed above and willing to start a
UBL LSC to undertake the other activities we expect of UBL
localization subcommittees should contact me off the list.

And yes, that sentence was made complicated on purpose. :-)

Note that LSCs were not intended as venues for the creation of
profiles or subsets.  (I suppose there is no reason they couldn't
be adapted to that purpose, but that wasn't the intention.)  None
of the profiles we've got so far were created in a UBL LSC.

Jon