Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 14|15 March 2005

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING
00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 15 MARCH 2005

ATTENDANCE

   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Micah Dubinko
   Betty Harvey
   Tim McGrath
   Yukinori Saito

STANDING ITEMS

   Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm)

      TimM: The IEEE workshop in Hong Kong is just the 29th; the
      other two days are a general IEEE meeting.

   Liaison reports

      JonB: Have resigned from the EIDX Board of Governors due to
      disagreement with the emerging IPR policy.

   Subcommittee reports

      HISC (MicahD): Expect a lot of movement next week with the
      meta-input spec, adding things like the navigation sequence
      and data collection intents to the SBS XPath files; should
      start bringing on implementors in the near future.

      JonB: You will certainly want to talk to Justsystem,
      OpenOffice, and Adobe.

      MicahD: Email is working so well for this that we won't be
      holding phone calls for the next two weeks.

   Team reports

      COML (TimM): We have received input from TBG17 providing
      their current working model of the TBG CC library and are
      now trying to line that up with the version sent last
      October from which we have been working.  The realignment is
      not as easy as we had thought, and it may be difficult to
      accommodate the new TBG17 model and still hit the April 15
      deadline for input to UBL 1.1.  SueP is meeting with Crimson
      Logic this week, and we're hoping that she can recommend a
      way to proceed within our timeline.

      European input (TimM): Have distributed IDA, OGC, and UBL
      1.0 process diagrams to the TC for discussion.  The group
      proposes to merge the requirements for IDA and OGC into a
      common business process model for procurement, and then
      extend the UBL process model to support that.  Progress has
      been made in the last couple of meetings; OGC and IDA have
      both spent a lot of time analyzing the requirements and
      proposing 5-6 additional document types (credit and debit
      notes, statement, etc.) to deal with the settlement phase of
      procurement.  Discussion also indicates that for a
      relatively low investment, the extended procurement process
      could also include sourcing or pre-ordering documents:
      catalog, request for quote, quote.  This would allow for
      information about products and services to be exchanged
      prior to ordering, and it appears that these document types
      wouldn't require a lot of additions to the library but could
      be assembled from the existing components.  IDA and OGC
      believe that the extended process captures a lot of
      requirements for government procurement.

      TimM to distribute a process diagram to illustrate what's
      being proposed and what needs to be added to UBL; for
      discussion next week.

      JonB: SylviaW's question last week regarding the
      Rectification Advice?

      TimM: Looks a bit like credit note... Somebody ships, says
      this is what I'm sending, recipient says this is what I
      got... Allows sender and receiver to synchronize.

      JonB: But as SylviaW pointed out, we could still operate
      without the Rectification Advice.

      TimM: Yes.  The more document types we introduce, the more
      variations of the procurement process model are possible,
      and maybe not all of it gets used.

UBL 1.0 DATA DICTIONARY

   From today's agenda:

      | So what I would like to propose in today's Pacific TC call
      | is that we approve the current version for a CD ballot,
      | authorizing me as the editor to update the credits and to
      | prepare an openoffice version to go along with the Excel
      | version (if that's feasible within this schedule).  I think
      | that the DD in its present form is a uniquely useful
      | document, and I'd like to put it into circulation as soon as
      | possible.

   Agreed: Go ahead with CD.

   Agreed: Call it the UBL 1.0 International Data Dictionary and
   put that in the document title.

   Agreed: The planned HTML/PSI version is really a presentational
   variation and can proceed on its own schedule.

UBL 1.1 SCHEMA GENERATION

   From the 1 March Pacific call:

      Tim - Software subcommittee pilot - the production of
      schemas for development of schemas for UBL 1.1.  Produce the
      most appropriate spreadsheet of those changes -and how much
      can be produced in EDIFIX and how much will require manual
      manipulation.

   JonB: Meaning?

   TimM: This is actually an SSC issue.  I think it will be easier
   to do this by hand, but the SSC needs to determine this through
   testing.

PREPAYMENTS IN INVOICE

   See question from Tom Beneda:

      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200503/msg00014.html

   TimM: The difficulty is in describing the tax... Bottom line:
   our current process does not support this; the current model
   works on the idea that an invoice and its tax are isolated
   things: every invoice total has a tax that applies to it.  The
   difficulty of the scenario TomB describes is that you have to
   report two sets of taxes... "This is the total for this
   invoice, but it completes a transaction for which this was a
   total and this was a tax amount." The only way this could be
   handled in our current process would be for the final invoice
   to be in two parts, i.e., two invoices: one for the second
   payment and another that actually gave the overall total but
   did not require payment.  The process extensions proposed by
   the European Input group would resolve this by providing a
   Statement as well as an Invoice.  Question for TomB: Would
   providing a supplementary Statement message containing the
   totals of all the invoices and taxes paid suffice?

   JonB to forward this question to TomB.

CONTENT WORK SESSION

   Discussion of the JPLSC proposals continued:

      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200503/msg00017.html

   Item 1. Agreed: The requirement for Consignment Indicator is
   deferred until we develop a purchase demand business process
   model.

   Item 2. Agreed: The requirement for Supply Code is deferred
   until we develop a supply goods business process model.

   Item 3. Agreed: Create a new ASBIE for Contract and add it to
   the UBL Order; add a note to the description of the process
   scenario to the effect that the Order Contract applies to all
   items on the Order.

   Item 4. Agreed: Add a name for the item.

   Item 5. Agreed: Call this Inspection Method Code.  But we need
   examples to decide whether this is part of Order or part of
   Line Item.

   Saito-san to check with ECALGA to get an example.

   Item 6. Agreed: Delivery needs to know contact details.  We can
   see two alternative solutions: (1) Delivery Contact, and (2)
   Delivery Address Contact; that is to say, we can add the ASBIE
   between Contact and Delivery, or we can add the ASBIE between
   Contact and Address.  To be decided: Is the contact independent
   of the address?  Input requested from the list; for resolution
   next week.

   TC to review this question and provide input.

   Item 7. Agreed: This requirement can be met by using the
   current Item Identification ABIE.

   Item 8: Agreed: This requirement is satisfied by the current
   model.

NEXT WEEK

   JonB will be on vacation next week, so TimM will chair the
   Pacific call by tidying up loose ends and then beginning
   discussion of extensions to the process model.

   JonB to send the agenda.

MEETING IN HANGZHOU

   JonB to notify CNIS of expected attendance.

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC