Re: [ubl] UBL master data for maintenance

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[jon.bosak@sun.com:]

| There was never a decision to use EF as the master.  On the
| contrary, the decision was explicitly to use the spreadsheets as
| the master, and it was upon the basis of this understanding, and
| the agreement by GEFEG to provide for both import and export of
| the spreadsheets, that the TC agreed to use EF for the UBL 1.1
| build cycle.

Oops, wait a second, that's not quite right.  The decision to use
EF was indeed predicated on the commitment to support spreadsheet
import and export, and we have been VERY clear that UBL production
cannot be dependent on proprietary technologies, and we certainly
have to follow our own naming and design rules, so if EF can't
support our NDRs with regard to versioning, then we have a real
problem.  But the decision we took in October leaves some room for
interpretation as to whether the model maintained in EF should be
considered "the master data model."  See

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200410/msg00052.html

and all the supporting documents linked from that.

The real issue is whether EF can support the methodology dictated
by our naming and design rules.  Obviously we're going to have to
discuss this in next week's TC calls.

Jon