[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Agenda for Pacific UBL TC call 11|12 April 2005
Dear Betty, Thank you very much for your updating the UBL-1-1-Additions spreadsheet. I have checked the resolutions regarding items issued by JPLSC. Please change the following resolutions. Item 19 (InspectionID or InspectionCode) Change from: Agreed: Call this Inspection Method Code. But we need examples to decide whether this is part of Order or part of Line Item. InspectionMethodCode to be an additional BBIE within LineItem. (occurences 0..1) Change to: Agreed: Call this Inspection Method Code. But we need examples to decide whether this is part of Order or part of Line Item. According to examples study by JPLSC, the Inspection Code is a part of Line item. InspectionMethodCode to be an additional BBIE within LineItem. (occurences 0..1) Reason to change: I added the sentence that JPLSC has studied the example. Item 20 (DeliveryContact) Change from: Agreed: Delivery needs to know contact details. We cansee 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. DeliveryContact to be a new ASBIE between Delivery and Contact. (occurrences 0..n ??) Change to: 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. DeliveryContact to be a new ASBIE in Delivery (ABIE). (occurrences 0..n ??) The inserting position of the new DeliveryContact (ASBIE) will be the end of the current structure. Reason to change: - Misspelling: "cansee" to "can see" - The last sentence is not suitable. I changed to the suitable sentence. Please refer to the attached e-mail. The rests of resolutions other than the items described above are OK for me. Best Regards, Yukinori Saito Vice Chair of UBL JPLSC ------------------------------------------- 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: "Betty Harvey" <harvey@eccnet.com> To: <jon.bosak@sun.com> Cc: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [ubl] Agenda for Pacific UBL TC call 11|12 April 2005 The UBL-1-1-Additions spreadsheet has been updated and is available at: http://www.eccnet.com/UniversalBusinessLanguage/UBL-1-1-Additions.xls I have missed the last two conference calls so please let me know if the resolution section is reflected accurately. Betty > Western hemisphere participants: note that this meeting takes > place Monday evening in your time zones. > > AGENDA FOR PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING > 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 12 APRIL 2005 > 17h30 - 19h30 Mon San Francisco > 20h30 - 22h30 Mon Washington > 08h30 - 10h30 Tue Hong Kong, Singapore, Perth, Beijing > 09h30 - 11h30 Tue Seoul, Tokyo > 10h30 - 12h30 Tue Sydney > ############################################# > STANDING INFORMATION FOR UBL CONFERENCE CALLS > U.S. domestic toll-free number: (866)839-8145 > Int. access/caller paid number: (865)524-6352 > Access code: 5705229 > ############################################# > > STANDING ITEMS > > Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm) > Liaison reports > Subcommittee reports > Team reports > > ACTION REVIEW (FROM LAST WEEK'S CALL) > > - TimM to follow up obtaining CL feedback with Kama. > > - TimM to schedule the resource question for discussion with the > European Input group Friday. > > - TimM to post a response to Constantine on the xml-dev list. > > - TimM to provide prototype spreadsheets to SSC. > > - JonB to provide the agenda and other Hangzhou meeting > information by the end of this week. > > - Content team to review the Tax XML gap analysis. > > CONTENT WORK SESSION > > Analyze the preliminary Tax XML analysis: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200504/msg00006.html > > Jon Bosak > Chair, OASIS UBL TC > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in > OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Yukinori Saito" <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp>
- To: "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:56:06 +0900
Dear Tim McGrath, Thank you very much for your quick response. I understand that the inserting position of the new DeliveryContact (ASBIE) will be the end of the current structure. Best Regards, Yukinori Saito ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> To: "Yukinori Saito" <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp> Cc: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:27 PM 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-help@lists.oasis-open.org--- End Message ---
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]