Re: [ubl] Does UBL becomes a real, serious Standards Body

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[dill2@gefeg.com:]

| 1. The minor one is the issue how and whether this will be still
| mergeable with any CEFACT work. Here I'm not aware of a real
| progress.
| 
|  - Gives the negotiation on the political level some hope that
|    this merger issue will be closed?
| 
|  - Mark announced at the closing plenary the last CEFACT Forum,
|    that ATG are working on the NDR issue. Does this need to be
|    solved before or after the political and organization issues
|    the UBL TC management is certainly discussing with the CEFACT
|    Forum Management?

As Michael knows (because he's part of the team), discussions
along this line are just beginning.  It remains to be seen whether
these issues can be resolved, but there appears to be general
agreement that a technical finding regarding the feasibility of a
dual-NDR approach is required before this approach can be
seriously considered as a solution.

| 2. If there is either the intention not to merge with CEFACT or a
| low probability that this will happen, then my major concern is
| that there is IMO a need to have proper submission procedures for
| new library objects, which includes the localization committees,
| the tracking and tracing of change requests, the intermediate
| publication of approved stuff etc etc.
| 
| Maintenance issues are often boring and time consuming. Geniuses
| tend to ignore this aspect or to leave this to others. Is there
| any chance to have teh necessary full time resources?

Since I have no more information about the availability of future
full-time resources than Michael does, I have to take this
question as rhetorical.

| 3. In the case of a release of so many new documents within a UBL version,
| it will be important to solve the issue with the stand alone BBIE directly
| under the document level. They are potentially redundant and another
| solution should be found by using ASBIEs instead.
| E.G. Order Cancellation. Copy. Indicator and Order Change. Copy. Indicator,
| which have the same definition (BTW in order to be fully CCTS compliant,
| they should not have!). Another aspect is, that often several documents have
| to have the same substructures in order to meet the requirements of the
| business data flow. How to gurantee this without any CCTS reuse?
| Whenever a definition needs to be changed, this has to be done in several
| documents, currently just 8, later 60+ - this is simply not manageable
| without either unnecessary work and errors or a new redundancy-free
| approach.
| Otherwise we will have an increasing number of 'de facto' semantic
| structures i.e. same semantic data with no links between them. This is a
| serious modeling issue to me.

This looks like something to enter on the issues list.  Does our
decision to go "all global" in 2.0 tie in with this?

Jon