Re: [ubl] Minutes for Pacific UBL TC call 21|22 March 2005

[Yukinori Saito <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp>]

Dear Tim McGrath

Thank you very much for your Minutes for Pacific UBL TC call 21|22 March
2005.

Your minutes says the following sentence regarding Item 6 (DeliveryContact)
in CONTENT WORK SESSION.

| Item 6. DeliveryContact to be a new ASBIE between Delivery and Contact.
| (occurrences 0..n ??)

I cannot understand the phrase 'between Delivery and Contact' clearly.

My understanding of resolution regarding Item 6 is following.
DeliveryContact to be a new ASBIE in Delivery (ABIE). (occurrences 0..n ??)
The inserting position of the new DeliveryContact (ASBIE) will be better to
be near position of the DeliveryAddress (ASBIE) in Delivery (ABIE).

Is my understanding suitable? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Best Regards,
Yukinori Saito
-------------------------------------------
Yukinori Saito
Fuji Electric Information Service Co., Ltd. (FIS)
e-mail: saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp
Tel: +81-3-5435-7333     Fax: +81-3-5435-7513
------------------------------------------- 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:19 PM
Subject: [ubl] Minutes for Pacific UBL TC call 21|22 March 2005


MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING
00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 22 MARCH 2005

ATTENDANCE

   Tim McGrath(chair)
   Yukinori Saito
   Stephen Green
   Sylvia Webb
   Anne Hendry

Apologies:
   Micah Dubinko
   Betty Harvey
   Jon Bosak

 STANDING ITEMS

  Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm) -
NONE
  Liaison reports - NONE
  Subcommittee reports

SBSSC:
SG: Need assistance with preparing documentation.  beta version 2 is ready.
TM: Can help with editing drafts
YS: ECALGA is also a subset and perhaps they can share ideas - will
liase offline {ACTION YS and SG}

HISC:
TM: will remind IDA about collaboration on this work. {ACTION TM}

Team reports
OGC/IDA:
TM: Prepared combined procurement business process model for
consideration by UBL TC. Moving ahead with gap analysis. OGC and IDA
sharing the same approach to this.

SSC CONTENT ISSUES
See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200503/msg00034.html
SG: UBL 1.1 extensions need to be indicated in models.
SW: GEFEG cannot review the models.
AH: We will need QA group (as we have in past) to do this.
SG: Require a checklist of does and dont's for models.
TM: Content group should prepare draft version ASAP to prototype the
meta data required.  This may overlap with that used by SBSSC. {ACTION TM}

CONTENT WORK SESSION
Unresolved questions from last week's meeting (see minutes)
YS: presented items 5-8 for consideration.
conclusions:
Item 5. InspectionMethodCode to be an additional BBIE within LineItem.
(occurences 0..1)
Item 6. DeliveryContact to be a new ASBIE between Delivery and Contact.
(occurrences 0..n ??)
Item 7. Barcodes (and RFID codes) shuld be instances of ASBIE
AdditionalItemIdentification with the precise coding mechansism stated
as attributes of the code.  No change to UBL 1.0.
Item 8. CurrencyCode in AllowanceCharge is to cater for when no Amount
is given (only a multiplier factor).  In hindsight this is confusing.
The preferred solution is to remove CurrencyCode from AllowanceCharge
and make Amount mandatory (agrees with TaxML comments).  But this has to
be on the UBL 2.0 issues list as it breaks backward compatibility.  UBL
1.1 recommendation is to make comments in the description of these two
BBIEs to the effect that CurrencyCode is not recommended and Amount
should be used in all cases to specify the currency of the allowance or
charge.
{ACTION All: to check other documents (eg Invoice) for similar construct}
{ACTION Betty: to updated issues list and circulate prior to meeting of
April 4/5}
{ACTION YS: to congratuate the JPLSC for their  invaluable contribution
to this work}

Process extensions to support IDA/OGC requirements
Main concern is the resources required to support this number of new
documents not the processes themselves.
TM: could be broken into manageable chunks some for UBL 1.1 and some for
2.0.
TM:  9 new document types to existing 9 types (error with Invoice being
flagged as new). Some have UN Layout Key templates already.
TM: Behind each of these already lies an OGC/IDA data model.
SW: Are the data models portable? {ACTION TM: check with IDA and OGC}
SW: Is this aligned with other procurement models (eg. TBG1)?
TM: It is understood that IDA derive some of their input from the work
of TBG1.
TM: Adopting this model positions UBL for adoption by many government
agencies in Europe.  Some adoption is already happening in the
scandanavian countries.  This would make it easier.  If not for present
use it is a direction for the future.
SG: UBL 1.1 should have a many new documents as possible to make it
worthwhile.
{ACTION TM to prepare a draft response to OGC/IDA that indicates our
willingess to incorporate this model, the schedule being contingent on
having resources from OGC/IDA to assist in the work. Draft to circulate
to UBL TC for comment and approval}

NEXT MEETING
Pacific call schedule 5 April (4 April in the Americas).

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160

DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business
Informatics and Web Services
(coming soon from MIT Press)
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-help@lists.oasis-open.org