[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-lsc] Minutes of UBL Liaison SC meeting 2002.06.05
The UBL Liaison Subcommittee met in person and by phone Wednesday 5 June 2002 at the UBL meeting hosted in Minneapolis by X12 and DISA. Present in person Jon Bosak (chair) Mark Crawford (vice chair, UBL TC) Bob Glushko (invited observer) Richard Mader (ARTS) Garret Minakawa (invited observer) Sue Probert (UN/EDIFACT) Ray Seddigh (XBRL) Lisa Seaburg (editor, UBL LC SC) Alan Stitzer (invited observer) Present by phone Bill French (EIDX) Patrick Gannon (invited observer) Zack Coffin (invited observer) Calendar updates The LSC discussed the offer made by X12 to hold a joint meeting in Miami (now scheduled for 6-11 October). Conclusion: We welcome the offer, but (a) we probably need to meet on our own for a bit to meet our release schedule, and (b) there is a major conflict with a Core Components meeting also scheduled for Miami that will require the attendance of several UBL principals heavily involved in the CC work. So we have no problem with the concept but several problems with the logistics. We resolved to continue this discussion at the next LSC meeting 14 June. The eBTWG payload recommendations The LSC discussed the recent approval by UN/CEFACT CSG of payload recommendations made by the eBTWG. Patrick Gannon reported that the ebXML JCC noted this action but refused to endorse it on behalf of the joint ebXML initiative. We noted the following: - The lack of any commitment to convergence or harmonization among the payload specification efforts recommended by the eBTWG - That none of the recommended languages could be considered conformant to ebXML if use of CC work is the criterion - That all the recommended payload formats are object-based rather than document-based - That the two obvious payload formats missing from the list are document-based, like UBL - That the eBTWG position seems to point CEFACT in the direction of endorsing outside payload efforts rather than building its own - That with respect to the UMM the choice of approved schemas is essentially arbitrary, it being an accident of history that some of the choices used UMM and some did not - That there is no determinate criterion for distinguishing conformant payload syntaxes from nonconformant payload syntaxes - That the omission of UBL from the list is ironic in light of the fact that we alone have had a commitment to Core Components wired into our charter from the beginning - That the omission of RosettaNet and xCBL from the list of recommended payload formats is especially unfair since these efforts would have no problem committing to CC support and were heavily involved in the development of ebXML - That no attempt seems to have been made on the part of eBTWG to reach out to ACORD, CIDX, PIDX, IXRetail, cXML, etc. The LSC directed the chair to prepare a draft response to register concern with OASIS on the path that CEFACT has taken with these recommendations. [See the ubl-lsc list for the outcome of this.] The LSC agreed that other organizations and individuals should be alerted to our concern and that the sense of the language conveyed to OASIS should be included in the presentation to the Interop Summit in Orlando. Relationship with UN/CEFACT The chair reported on the previous day's meeting with X12 COTG and the invitation extended by Ralph Berwanger to consider putting UBL into the new UN/CEFACT Forum. A couple of general problems with the new CEFACT structure were noted: - That domain working group procedures are being determined by people outside of the domain groups - That there are no determinative criteria for establishing compliance with a UMM requirement Particular problems with UBL functioning in CEFACT were noted: - That the UMM process is not applicable to work that is attempting a synthesis of existing XML syntaxes - That organizationally, UBL is a unique task group attempting to accomplish a specific project and would have to stay that way to work inside CEFACT - That some groups within the new Forum have a mandate that overlaps ours Conditions that would have to be established if we were to join CEFACT were noted: - UBL would need to be its own group, not part of another - The CCs and BIEs coming from the UBL work would have to be introduced into the CEFACT harmonization process and not vetoed or modified on methodological or non-technical grounds - It would have to be recognized that the "open development process" is inappropriate to this project (we can't have non-participants trying to change the specifications) It was noted that our default position (continue as an OASIS TC) has some advantages: - That we can function to pull together the experts from X12 and EDIFACT as well as a number of vertical industry data exchange organizations - That the alternative in which CEFACT outsources this work to us continues to be attractive (though the UMM and development processes remain issues) - That our current position makes us much more responsive to the needs of organizations like ACORD than if we were part of CEFACT The LSC concluded that at this time we should try to become CEFACT's preferred provider of XML syntax and XML design rules while maintaining separate ownership and should urge that the UBL design rules should become the default for ebXML CC-compliant XML syntax development efforts. Jon Bosak Chair, UBL LSC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC