[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Minutes for Pacific UBL TC call 21|22 March 2005
my apologies for not being clearer. you are correct we propose a new ASBIE for Delivery that associates with Contact. But it will be added to the end of the current structure - as required by the customization rules. Yukinori Saito wrote: >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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]