[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]