Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 9 December 2004

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

00H30 - 02H30 UTC THURSDAY 9 DECEMBER 2004

ATTENDANCE

   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Micah Dubinko
   Anne Hendry
   G. Ken Holman
   Tim McGrath

REPORTS

   HISC: KenH: Hard to achieve quorum with new meeting time.
   MicahD will research vocab for input specs.

CALENDAR

   Nothing new.

MAY MEETING

   No news.  TimM to ping Beijing organizers.

MOU/MG REPORT

   We reviewed the minutes of the Atlantic call on this subject.

PROPOSED CONTENT TEAM

   TimM: The issue referred to in the Atlantic minutes is an SSC
   issue.  It has already been determined that we need the three
   data items, they just need to be built into the EF model.  With
   regard to content issues going forward, we decided in Santa
   Clara that these would be worked on during the Pacific TC
   calls; no new team or series of team meetings are needed to
   accomplish this.

   Agreed: We will enable participation by moving the Pacific TC
   meetings to Monday/Tuesday, with the second part of each
   meeting to be devoted to content issues.

   JonB to check with content participants regarding the
   Monday/Tuesday slot and move the Pacific TC meeting time for
   next week.

REVIEW OF ATLANTIC TC CALL

   TimM: With regard to ATG version of CCTS, agree with Anne that
   it's unlikely that convergence can be accomplished in 1.1, but
   we won't know for sure till we see the proposed schemas.

   Agreed with regard to UBL-SpecializedDatatypes (issue 5): The
   UBL data model is a superset of the CCTS model; we have
   additional pieces of info that are not specified in CCTS; so
   the GEFEG model has to represent the UBL model by supporting
   those additional components.  This is implicit in the
   requirement to round-trip the spreadsheets.  Likewise for the
   registry (when we get there).

   TimM: Agree with all of the decisions relating to the current
   issues list.  With regard to Number 7: In reviews of NDR, we
   noted that there is no rule describing what we do when there is
   a duplicate object class name; there was such a rule in the
   earliest NDRs, but not now; it got lost when the NDR document
   was first redrafted.

   AnneH: See ATN1.  The rule is being changed; we had agreement
   on this in Santa Clara.

   TimM: So this is an editorial fix to a rule that accidentally
   got dropped.

   Agreed: As we decide each NDR issue, the NDR doc should be
   revised so that we always have available the current state of
   decisions relating to the NDRs.