[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Coordination call 19 December 2003
The 19 December UBL CSC coordination call will take place
7 a.m. California time at the following 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
#############################################
As usual, the call is open to all interested UBL TC members.
=====================================
ISSUES ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING
=====================================
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 (2003.12.12)
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 the standard schema format for the code
lists to be used in UBL according to schema naming and
design rules specified by NDRSC. We hope that this
format 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.
- CLSC also develops a methodology for the maintenance and
user extension of code lists (example: standard / stock /
placebo mechanism).
- TTSC instantiates the code lists in the catalogue by
generating schemas that incorporate the values provided
by LCSC in the format defined by CLSC.
Assignments (2003.12.12)
Ken Holman, Mavis Cournane, and Sue Probert are assigned the
task of further clarifying the outcomes of 2003.12.12 above
and submitting the result to the CSC.
Carried forward (2003.12.12)
We need to reach out to external code list agencies to work
with us; could this be a job for the Liaison SC? [Probably
not; the MoU/MG might be better. We need to consider this
further.]
Suggested terminological clarification (2003.12.19)
I suggest that we distinguish between a code list template
(the format that we are standardizing for code lists) and a
code list schema (the XSD schema containing a particular
enumerated list).
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.
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.
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.
Status (2003.12.19)
Correspondence is underway between Tim, Stig, Sue, and
Marion to try to sort this out.
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 (2003.12.12)
- Jon Bosak to contact Stig Korsgaard to ask him how we go
about appointing Marion our liaison to TBG17.
Status (2003.12.19)
- We have received submission guidelines from Stig, and
approval of Marion as our liaison to TBG17 is now in process
in the TC.
==================================
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. (This issue was not on
the agenda for this call; it fell out of the discussion of
2003-1212-02.)
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
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]