[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 24 April 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting
Minutes for 24 April 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting The base URI for partial URIs provided below is: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/ 1. Roll call (quorum is 8) * Bill Burcham YES * Mavis Cournane YES * Mark Crawford * Fabrice Desré YES * Matt Gertner * Arofan Gregory YES * Phil Griffin * Jessica Glace * Eduardo Gutentag YES (joined x:10) * John Larmouth * Eve Maler YES * Sue Probert YES * Lisa Seaburg * Gunther Stuhec YES * Paul Thorpe (Marion Royal as an observer) Quorum not reached as of x:06. We proceeded informally. Quorum reached at x:10. 2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meeting 17 April 2002 F2F meeting: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200204/msg00048.html Accepted. 3. Adoption of agenda Adopted. 4. Status review Everyone: - A: Review the modnamver paper, the examples, and the 0.64 schema distribution. - A: Read Matt's types paper and see if we want to prioritize it higher. DONE Mavis: - A: Tag structure/NDR changes. IN PROGRESS Eve: - A: Code list paper. IN PROGRESS - A: Help Mavis with Word styles in NDR document - A: Get LC SC feedback on global attributes. IN PROGRESS - A: Get LC SC feedback on "prose" needs. IN PROGRESS - A: (new) Send out proposed wording for RT/CCT proposal #3. Bill: - C: Role model paper Arofan: - A: Attempt a more specific RT/CCT proposal. CANCELED - A: (with Gunther) Take up facet discussion with LC SC. IN PROGRESS - A: (new) (with Sue) Send out proposed wording for RT/CCT proposal #4 - A: Forward latest version of xCBL versioning paper. - B: Containership paper Sue: - A: (new) (with Arofan) Send out proposed wording for RT/CCT proposal #4. Gunther: - A: (with Arofan) Take up facet discussion with LC SC. IN PROGRESS - C: Date/time paper Summary of work to be done: A External recommendations for changes to CCTS. IN PROGRESS A Code lists. IN PROGRESS A Modnamver. IN PROGRESS A NDR document production. IN PROGRESS A Review the purchase order schema design A Officially decide elements vs. attributes. DONE TODAY A Officially decide empty elements. DONE B Tag structure B Containership B Fixed vs. varying types C Dates and times Schedule: May 1: RT/CCT completion, code lists (1hr) May 8: (2hr) May 15: (1hr) May 22: (2hr) May 29: (what else?), approve NDR document for distribution (2hr) June 5-9 (the F2F meeting itself, if all goes according to plan) 5. Status of NDR document production/outline Mavis has sent out a new draft, incorporating instructions from the last couple of weeks. She will now start updating this weekly. 6. RT/CCT comments and status We reviewed Tim McGrath's latest revision: pos/UBL-comments-on-CCTS.doc We accepted Proposal 1 as amended. (Bill has the final wording.) We rejected Proposal 2 as written. Bill will try to come up with alternate wording and get Tim's input on it. We accepted Proposal 3 in principle, but think the wording needs to be crisper. We were unable to come to agreement on what to do about Proposal 4. New ACTION: Eve to send out new wording for Proposal 3. New ACTION: Sue and Arofan to send out new wording for Proposal 4. 7. Code lists We reviewed the document and added an Interoperability requirement. Eve and Fabrice will work on the document more for next time. Eve needs to fix the link to the existing document. 8. Elements vs. attributes pos/draft-stuhec-elemvsattrib-03_SWIFTcomments.doc We formally accepted the proposal to use elements for everything, except for using attributes for supplementary components. The the common/global property/attribute issue is still outstanding. Gunther brought up the potential need to use attributes to add instructions for, e.g., changing a single line item inside an order. Arofan suggested that this should be done in a new instance, and also that this is a modeling issue, not an NDR issue. Also, XPath makes some of these instructions really easy to do in tools. 9. Modnamver pos/draft-burcham-modnamver-03.pdf - Versioning: Arofan's original recommendation was you version the entire component library. If you change the core library, it needs to ripple upwards if the changes are backwards incompatible. The identifier for each functional area needs to indicate what version of core it needs. Implementors will want to avoid supporting more than one version of the core library at once. For a given message type, it should only ever use a single version of any module, not just the core library. The question is, how to enforce this? Commerce One's conventional URN paper describes a way to do this, and also importing namespaces that have version information in them. SAML ended up putting version information everywhere. We shouldn't forget the idea of making the version a context. Then a URN could contain the version, *and* all the relevant context drivers. New ACTION: Arofan to forward the latest version of the xCBL versioning paper. - Separate RT/CCT module: Deferred. - How many root schemas: Deferred. We will discuss these over the next couple of weeks to "wake them up". 10. Adjourn Adjourned at y:58. -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC