Tim,
I think this is a well put. I would only
offer the following alternative concluding paragraph:
To conclude, the UBL
Transportation Subcommittee takes Resolution 3 from your Barcelona
meeting very seriously. Whilst we do not believe we have acted
incorrectly in these matters, we do believe a more proactive approach in communicating
our intentions accurately is essential.
Andy
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006
2:37 AM
To: ubl-tsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Michael.Onder@dot.gov
Subject: [ubl-tsc] Draft Response
to TBG3
The resolution TBG3 propose to the CEFACT Forum is..
TBG3 has acknowledged the release of UBL 2.0 published
for a second public review period and is disappointed that a number of
fundamental issues raised by TBG3 at the January 2006 first review period, are
still pending for consideration within the next UBL 3.0 release. TBG 3 will
only be able to concur with the Transport related parts of any UBL releases
provided that the requirements of TBG3 are fulfilled in terms of the
consistency between UBL business processes and data models and the TBG3/UNeDocs
BRS and Core Components data model. TBG3 resolves to invite the UBL-TSC to participate
in its work and TBG3 will communicate any deliverables produced to UBL.
As discussed on today's call we propose to send an
email to Dominique Vankemmel (the Chair of TBG3) and Henk Van Maaran (the Vice
Chair) explaining our situation. My first draft at this is...
<>The UBL Transportation Subcommittee is
surprised and also disappointed that we have failed to communicate our
intention with regard to accommodating the concerns of TBG3 following the
recent public review of UBL version 2.0. Given our limited time and
resources we have had to restrict the scope of the business processes covered
by UBL 2.0. This is not to say we do not recognize the limitations TBG3
have identified, only that we could not address them in a meaningful way in
time to meet the UBL 2.0 schedule. In fact, UBL version 2.0 is now
completed and currently being ratified by OASIS, to be published in December
2006.
It is regrettable but true that the participants in the UBL Transportation
Subcommittee are self funded and so attending face-to-face meetings is not
always feasible. This has been unfortunate. For example, had UBL
been able to participate in the recent Barcelona
meeting of TBG3 we might have avoided such a misunderstanding of our
intentions.
Be assured, UBL is committed to moving its work into CEFACT.
We believe we have a formal agreement with the CEFACT Plenary to do this.
This means the UBL Transportation Subcommittee intends to collaborate with TBG3
on all future developments.
><>
One such development could be the extension and refinement of the
Transportation Status document. This appears to be a worthwhile task that
would allow us to take an existing UBL document together with implementation
experience from the US Dept. of Transport's EFM project and develop both a
business process and data model consistent with both TBG3 and UN/eDocs.
The resulting artifacts can then be submitted as UN/CEFACT deliverables.
Such a work programme mirrors a similar collaboration between UBL and TBG1.
To conclude, the UBL Transportation Subcommittee takes Resolution 3 from your Barcelona
meeting very seriously. Whilst we do not believe we have acted
incorrectly in these matters, we do believe we have failed to communicate our
intentions accurately. For this we apologise. >
Can we all review this text urgently and send comments to Kama
so we can get this out on Friday.
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath