[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 24|25 January 2005
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2005 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Jessica Glace Tim McGrath Yukinori Saito Sylvia Webb LOCALIZATION SESSION The first part of the meeting was devoted to a review of the draft multilingual UBL data dictionary at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200501/msg00023.html Saito-san: We already have a translation for Japanese people; what is the purpose of a multilingual data dictionary [MLDD]? JonB: First, it allows the definitions to be used by people working to implement trade between partners fluent in two of the translation targets but not English, for example, between Japanese and Chinese trading partners. Second, putting all the translations into a single deliverable forces resolution of certain decisions implicit in the versions created by the different localization subcommittees, for example, ordering the document types by their likely use (as done by the JPLSC) rather than alphabetically (as done by the other LSCs). Third, it improves Q/A by keying all of the translations to identical English definitions and identical metadata; from here on, we can make all revisions to this single source rather than trying to keep multiple translations in sync. Fourth, running the whole MLDD through the CD process and the public review will encourage input from groups that have not felt required to review the translations yet. And finally, this single source is necessary in order to refer to both the original definition and the translated definition by a single generated Published Subject Identifier (PSI), which is an OASIS specification we are trying to incorporate into this work. Note that you can always hide the columns that are not of interest to a particular set of users. Saito-san: What parts of the MLDD are normative? JonB: Only the parts that were normative in UBL 1.0; the rest (including all of the translated definitions) is just user documentation at this point. I hope that in future releases we can move the translations toward normative status as well, but that will require the input of business and legal experts in each region and perhaps even the cross-border normalization of business processes themselves. TimM: OK with moving the MLDD to CD; was imagining that we will include a 1.1 version when we publish the UBL 1.1 spec. JonB: That's certainly worth trying, but it assumes that we can keep all of the translation teams active through 1.1. Also, translations should always lag behind release of the English version, because the translators should not begin work till the source document is actually published. Witness the problems we're having right now that resulted from beginning the 1.0 translation work with 1.0 Beta instead of waiting for publication of the 1.0 Standard. TimM: What is the time line for the MLDD? JonB: Something like this: 2005.02.15: Pick this up again in the Pacific TC call, hoping that the missing Korean revisions are in by then; begin HTML transformation and PSI generation 2005.03.15: Try to sign off on a complete CD candidate (noting the missing Korean corrections as "known issues" if necessary) 2005.03.21: Begin CD balloting 2005.03.28: End CD balloting April 2005: Public review of the MLDD CD May 2005: Resolve comments received during review, using the Hangzhou UBL TC meeting to work on this June 2005: Reballot the CD and release it as a CD JonB: I expect two kinds of comments resulting from the one-month public review: comments regarding the translations, which should be disposed of in MLDD 1.0; and comments regarding the original English definitions, which should become work items for UBL 1.1. Our schedule for UBL 1.1 forecasts delivery of the CD by November 2005; translation for MLDD 1.1 should begin then, so allowing for public reviews and so on, this would put delivery of the final MLDD 1.1 CD at mid-2006. Agreed that this appears to be a reasonable schedule. Saito-san: The JPLSC will be meeting this week in Tokyo. We will discuss this activity and send conclusions and proposals. With regard to UBL representation at the ebXML Asia Committee in February, TimM will be talking to Thomas Lee soon and will confirm that he can represent UBL there. OTHER BUSINESS Saito-san: The JPLSC has two topics to discuss. First, as reported in email 5 January 2005, the JPLSC has translated the UDT and SDT spreadsheets and conveyed some questions and comments arising from this; we want to see these registered in the issues list. JonB and TimM: The comments relating to ebXML CCTS fall outside our purview and should be submitted into the UN/CEFACT CCTS schema review currently underway. The two points relating to SDTs (comment #2, "Specialized Data Types" in the document dated 5 January) do relate to the UBL content work and should be logged in the content issues list. Action: BettyH to add the two issues under #2 in the 5 January message from Saito-san to the content issues list. Saito-san: The second topic relates to the promotion of UBL in Japan. Japan is in the process of transition from the traditional Japanese EDI system, EIJA, to the next generation XML-based system, ECALGA, which will become the major business document standard for Japan. We have done a mapping of ECALGA to UBL and developed a subset of UBL for the Japanese marketplace. Our "Mapping Study of Major Business Documents to UBL" contains a twelve-page report in English translated from the Japanese. In the process of preparing this study, we have identified a number of BIEs that we propose should be added to UBL. We would like to submit these proposals to the UBL TC in two to three weeks. JonB: This comes at a perfect time for us. We will be looking for the JPLSC proposals and working on them in the content sessions of the Pacific TC calls. STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm) SylviaW: Will be attending the X12 meeting 6-11 February 2005. TimM: Add OASIS Open Standards conference in Sydney 26-28 October 2005. Agreed that TimM should represent UBL at this conference. Liaison reports SylviaW: There are several OASIS TCs looking at UBL: Legal, Human Markup, International Health Continuum. Agreed that Sylvia should keep a lookout for possible liaisons to the UBL TC. We are hopeful that Scott Edson from Legal can attend our F2F next week. Subcommittee reports SSC: Sylvia: No SSC meeting this week due to email problems. Team reports None. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION THIS MEETING "Template instances" for Altova We note that work continues in xml-dev on the Small Business Subset (formerly UBL Lite). Saito-san: The subset defined by the mapping of ECALGA to UBL constitutes a similar profile for Japanese SME manufacturing industries. JonB: So we will actually have two somewhat different subsets for Altova; this is great. TimM: Will the subset allow lossless mapping of ECALGA to UBL? Saito-san: Yes, with the addition of the important new BIEs that we will be sending in a few weeks. Additional BIE proposals from StephenG Action: BettyH to log these in our content issues list (see StephenG's message of 24 January). TimM to contact Valoris/OGC to kickoff European input to UBL 1.1. CONTENT WORK SESSION BaseAmount: Agreed to add a new BBIE to the AllowanceCharge structure called BaseAmount with representation term Amount and cardinality 0..1 (so only one max per AllowanceCharge). TaxCurrencyTaxAmount: This appears to be a context-dependent requirement; we need to understand whether this requirement exists in other regions. Action: keep on the issues list and revisit after we have received expected input from Europe (IDA) and Japan. We should also request input from the Tax XML TC. RoundoffAmount: We discussed this briefly a few weeks ago and didn't see sufficient justification. We note, however, that X12 has this in the summary section of the financial transactions; it may be a legacy requirement that we can't avoid. Action: SylviaW to see whether this ended up as a requirement in X12 XML. Action: Keep on the list of proposed additions and revisit when we have seen other proposals (if someone else comes up with this requirement, we will consider it again). PayeePartyName: within PartyMeans: the owner of an invoice transfers ownership to another institution, e.g. bank or debt collector. We observe that something like this is fairly common in retail (factoring) and the mortgage industry. Action: TimM to ask the originating group whether this requirement can be met using the existing PayeeFinancialAccountName element. NEXT MEETING The next Pacific TC meeting will take place 15 February (14 February in NA). In the meantime, we need a revised issues list from BettyH; we should try to find time for this at the F2F next week. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]