RE: [ubl] PLENARY REPORT FROM THE UBL TC MEETING IN HANGZHOU 9 MAY - 13 MAY 2005

[<MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Catherine,

You should only be creating ACCs when none exist.  The ACCs fill the role of the conceptual model that is the lynchpin between different logical data models as expressed in their BIEs.  Without basing BIEs on ACCs you end up with non-interoperable implementations that are inconsistently developed both within a particular effort as well as across efforts and as such offer no real value.  The current UBL submission the TBG is a prime example.  Since it was created out of whole cloth without having either the benefit of already existing core components of creating its own, it is divergent from every other submission in the TBG harmonization cue.  The difference between UBL and some of the other submissions is that those that at least developed the underlying conceptual CCs are consistent within their submission.  The same can not be said for those that did not trouble to create conceptual models.  As a result, our harmonization efforts in TBG are dramatically harder, and we are coming to the realization that we just will not be able to process any submission that does not have both the conceptual core components and the logical BIEs.

Mark
Mark R. Crawford
Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC, UN/CEFACT Applied Technologies Group 
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components

 
LMI Government Consulting
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102-7805
703.917.7177 Phone
703.655.4810 Wireless
The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater. 

www.lmi.org 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Catherine Williams [mailto:catherine.williams@pisces.co.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 4:55 AM
> To: Michael Dill; Tim McGrath
> Cc: Ubl
> Subject: RE: [ubl] PLENARY REPORT FROM THE UBL TC MEETING IN 
> HANGZHOU 9 MAY - 13 MAY 2005
> 
> Michael
> We find it really useful to have those BBIEs directly under 
> the document root.
> We don't want to have to create ACC's for every document 
> because we feel it isn't necessary, and there are often some 
> essential pieces of data which relate specifically to the 
> document. Not allowing them to exist there would mean that we 
> *would* have to create an ACC for every document.
> Is this what you are suggesting?
> 
> Catherine Williams
> Technical Manager
> PISCES - Connecting Real Estate ... Now
> +44 191 230 8094 Office
> +44 7947 279780 Mobile
> +44 191 226 8920 Fax
> catherine.williams@pisces.co.uk
>  
> 
> This message contains confidential information solely for its 
> intended recipients and others may not distribute, copy or 
> use it. If you have received this email in error please tell 
> us either by return e-mail or at the numbers above.  We have 
> used measures to ensure that this email is free from software 
> viruses. However, in accordance with good practice the 
> recipient is responsible for ensuring that it is virus free 
> before opening it. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dill [mailto:dill2@gefeg.com]
> Sent: 16 May 2005 22:15
> To: Tim McGrath
> Cc: Ubl
> Subject: AW: [ubl] PLENARY REPORT FROM THE UBL TC MEETING IN 
> HANGZHOU 9 MAY - 13 MAY 2005
> 
> 
> The minutes show that the F2F was a great and successful one!
> 
> > This will resolve the current inconsistency issue raised by 
> NDR where 
> > we
> have some BBIEs in documents and not in the Common Basic 
> Components. For
> 
> Tim,
> does this means, that there is a chance to get ride of the 
> stand alone BBIE directly under the document root? They are 
> some times redundant, what should never happen in a proper 
> model. This would be great and would remove one of the 
> barriers to vote positive for UBL 2.x
> 
> 
> thanks
> Michael
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
> Gesendet: Montag, 16. Mai 2005 13:04
> An: UBL TC
> Betreff: [ubl] PLENARY REPORT FROM THE UBL TC MEETING IN 
> HANGZHOU 9 MAY
> - 13 MAY 2005
> 
> 
> ==========================================================
> PLENARY REPORT FROM THE UBL TC MEETING IN HANGZHOU 9 MAY - 13 
> MAY 2005 ==========================================================
> MEETING LOGISTICS
>       Hangzhou Huagang HNA Resort,
>       No.1 Yanggongti, West Lake District,
>       Hangzhou, 310007, P.R.China
> PARTICIPANTS
>       Tim McGrath(chair)
>       Mavis Cournane
>       Anne Hendry
>       Thomas Lee
>       Yukinori Saito
>       Sung Hyuk Kim
>       Peter Larsen Borresen
>       Mikkel Hippe Brun
>       Colin Lam
>       Sun Ho Kim
>       Sun Wenfeng
>       Stephen Green  (teleconference Wednesday)
>       Jon Bosak (teleconference Monday)
> 
> OUTCOMES
> 
> The UBL Technical Committee greatly appreciate the support of 
> the Chinese National Institute of Standards and in particular 
> Mr Lu Bisong who organized this meeting in Hangzhou. The 
> meeting facilities and the personal contributions of CNIS 
> member, Sun Wenfeng were exceptional. Those in attendance 
> agreed this has been one of the most productive and enjoyable 
> UBL meetings to date.
> 
> The primary objectives of this meeting were:
> - Hear reports from localization subcommittees and liaisons
> - Review UBL 2.0 requirements and schedule
> - Work of development of content models for UBL 2.00
> - Discuss deployment strategies for UBL in the Asia Pacific region.
> - Review of comments received regarding the UBL 1.0 
> International Data Dictionary (IDD) CD
> - Discussion of possible UBL transition to UN/CEFACT
> 
> 1. Hear reports from localization subcommittees and liaisons 
> CNLSC:The Digital Trade and Transportation network in HK 
> intends to submit their document models to UBL. UBL 
> components, types and NDR have been used but not all the UBL 
> 1.0 Library Content. DTTN is government subsidized. The UBL 
> approach is recommended by the DTTN in HK.
> 
> KRLSC:KRLSC is now discussing financial support with KIEC. 
> KIEC wants to accept KRLSC as one of the working groups for 
> the e-document standardization. The support of KIEC wold have 
> a positive affect on the localization of UBL.The government 
> supported E Commerce Internet
> forum(ECIF) will receive the draft of the Korean localization 
> effort. There are also guidelines for UBL applications 
> written in Korean. This should be announced on the UBL website.
> 
> JPLSC: Has reviewed the mapping study between major Japanese 
> business documents and UBL. The translation of the UBL data 
> types was confirmed by a 90% match on essential BIEs. The 
> significance of the ECALGA project in Japan is huge.
> 
> Proposed Danish LSC: Danish adoption of UBL Invoice has been 
> successful. Next steps will be to ask UBL to have a Danish 
> Localisation Subcommittee(European). Implementation of UBL 
> order will be done by fall of 2006. A meeting is planned on 
> May 18th to initiate a European forum (perhaps a European 
> LSC). Attendees from Norway, Sweden, and Britain are expected.
> 
> ESLSC: Have built software libraries for UBL in Spain. 200 
> Companies are using the UBL libraries to generate the 
> invoices. Between now and June they will be going live with 
> 10 companies sending real invoices. In South America there is 
> an Ecuadorean working group. There is a 10 month plan to 
> define the UBL data needs, the pilot project and the 
> dissemination plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Review UBL 2.0 requirements and schedule
> 
> Proposed major changes from UBL 1.0 to 2.0:
> * Restructuring of the spreadsheet and schema architecture.
> * Adding new documents so a extended procurement and 
> certificate of origin application business process supported.
> * Adding more Party-types.
> * Buyer to buyer information applied.
> * Person-type added.
> * Incorporated legal requirements for Japan and the EU
> * Support of prepayment/recurring payment
> * Document references in all document types.
> * Enhancement based on localization requirements.
> * Better support for customisation.
> 
> The following are comments on the proposed UBL 2.0 extended 
> business process model for procurement.
> 
> Proposed Sourcing Collaboration
> We need a better document name than catalogue as this has 
> caused some confusion.The most common use case is for a 
> seller to send off a catalogue to various market places. He 
> could send it to a buyer but that would be rarer. The 
> catalogue part of the process should not be emphasised, and 
> should not be an integral part of the process. The request 
> for quotation and the quotation are an independent and 
> important part of the process. The catalogue question is 
> important between the seller and the marketplace but not 
> between the seller and the buyer.The Danish government would 
> be interested in sponsoring the development of cataloguing 
> document that extends the current proposed process. We should 
> split this process model into two - one to show the sourcing 
> and the other would be quotation. Quotation would be a more 
> interesting to Japan.
> 
> Proposed Fulfillment Collaboration
> Rectification advice is not a word that is a word that is 
> recognizable. A better word would be "Correction Advice". We 
> suspect we could just resend a corrected despatch advice (as 
> we do with Order). We may have a revised Receipt advice as 
> well. Peter Borresen will investigate whether a despatch 
> advice can satisfy the information requirements of a 
> rectification advice.
> 
> Proposed Buyer Billing Collaboration
> We need to know more about the information flow before a self 
> bill invoice is created, for example, how does the buyer 
> understand what to provide in the self bill invoice. Peter 
> Borresen to investigate with IDA.
> 
> Proposed Seller Billing Collaboration
> There is a document missing from the diagram - Account 
> Response. This needs to be redrawn.
> 
> Proposed Payment Collaboration
> There is also a requirement for an acknowledgment at the 
> business level. Where an invoice is rejected a message is 
> required to say so or else the Seller does not know until he 
> doesn't get paid. We will propose a Invoice Rejection 
> message. Mikkel Brun will design this. It was agreed that for 
> 2.0 we have to test that we can do a minor release before any 
> formal release to ensure that versioning mechanism works. 
> This should be done when we  generate the sample instances. 
> This will be done by the Danish representatives. 
> Additionally, there will be an editorial team for the NDR 
> document and extra resources to help with NDR activities are 
> requested. Mavis was nominated as the editorial team leader 
> to accomplish this.
> 
> Revised Schedule
>    17 May 2005 Content team meeting in the Pacific TC calls starts
>            processing input from European stakeholders and the
>            OASIS Tax XML TC
>    18 May 2005 NDR team meeting in the Atlantic TC calls starts
>            reviewing NDR issues in light of the decision to
>            make all elements global, then takes up code lists.
>                Restructure spreadsheet models (see above).
>    01 Jun 2005 Finalize requirements/issues list for 2.0
>    15 Jun 2005 TC agree requirements/issues list for 2.0
>                Begin updating spreadsheet models
>                Agree changes to the NDR
>    08 Jul 2005 Begin Public Review Number 1 (data model only)
>                Load spreadsheets into EDIFIX and test/revise 
> until synchronized
>    01 Jul 2005 GEFEG gets all the schema changes decided so far
>                (DavidK goes on vacation last two weeks of July)
>    08 Aug 2005 All-week UBL TC meeting in Ottawa hosted by Adobe:
>                Review of the spreadsheet and EDIFIX models.
>                Comment disposition, Review Number 1; begin final
>                schema generation for Review Number 2
>    01 Sep 2005 Package assembly for Review Number 2
>                Test that we can do a minor release
>    15 Sep 2005 Begin Public Review Number 2 (entire package)
>    15 Oct 2005 Comment disposition and repackaging
>    15 Nov 2005 2.0 internal UBL CD vote begins
>    01 Dec 2005 CD approved by start of UBL TC meeting;
>                begin OASIS one-month public review (etc.)
> 
> One of the key factors in whether we will meet the timetable 
> is whether we have the resources to do it. Since 1.0 there 
> are less resources to do it. Mikkel Brun emphasized that 
> meeting these schedules was critical to UBL's acceptance. We 
> also discussed the need for review at critical points in the 
> process in which TC wide participation is highly essential. 
> TC review may need to take place on joint calls. To better 
> facilitate work items, we propose to establish a third weekly 
> call slot (to suit Europe and Asia). Tim has offered to chair 
> these calls (if Jon approves).
> 
> 3. Work of development of content models for UBL 2.00
> For 2.0 we would like to change the structure of the 
> spreadsheets. The proposal is to have 3 three layers:
> * the documents and any ABIEs only they use,
> * common ABIEs (ie used more than once) within a context, and
> * core ABIEs.
> This will resolve the current inconsistency issue raised by 
> NDR where we have some BBIEs in documents and not in the 
> Common Basic Components. For example in the current CBC we 
> have ReceivedHandlingUnitReceiptLine that is not really a CAC 
> becasue it is contextual. It was agreed that "common"is not 
> the same as "core". NDR will need to redraw the schema 
> diagram showing the CACs and CBC schemas that implement this, 
> and to provide some naming rules for these. We will try to 
> ensure semantic compatibility with 1.0 and we don't intend to 
> change the Data Dictionary (but we will add to it). There may 
> be clarifications or definition changes in the Dictionary.
> COML: Crimson Logic have done a lot of the work that UBL will 
> incorporate into the UBL 2.0 Certificate of Origin document. 
> Peter Borresen and Thomas Lee will liaise with Crimson Logic 
> on the suitability for UBL of the model for digital 
> signatures as provided by the COML project. Tim will transfer 
> these requirements onthe UBL 2.0 issues list. IDA Issues: 
> Peter Borresen and the European localization group will 
> transfer their requirements into the UBL issues list.
> 
> 
> 4. Discuss deployment strategies for UBL in the Asia Pacific 
> region. JPLSC will propose a pilot project  with a view to 
> seeing how harmonization could happen between Japan and other 
> economies. The other LSC representatives said that they would 
> need some commerical funding to do this. Mikkel Brun will 
> take this offer up with some Danish companies.
> 
> 
> 5. Review of comments received regarding the UBL 1.0 
> International Data Dictionary (IDD) CD No comments were 
> recevied so the dscussion moved onto leveraging the value of 
> the IDD. We discussed that the translation of the library 
> content is very useful for the software UI if we could add a 
> "label" to the metedata for use in forms. It was noted that 
> we now have a UBL CD document that will require maintenance. 
> We need a synchronization plan to ensure coordination between 
> the various localization SCs. There will be a need to 
> translate new entries and to improve translations of existing 
> entries. One of the attractions of the IDD is that it could 
> be a repository on a website and the entries would be URIs 
> that could be pointed to. The LSCs shared their different 
> approaches in doing translation. In Japan individual 
> translation was done, and then a peer review took place. In 
> Korea this was done more in a group with a coordinator. In 
> China, there were 3 phases. First the BIEs were translated, 
> one person did the draft translation, it was group reviewed, 
> this was just within CNIS this review.During this process 
> much attention  was paid to the old EDI translations. The 
> existing translations of EDI were then reviewed by Industry 
> Experts. In Japan existing EDI translations were also used as 
> basis for the initial translations. a. Recommendations for 
> new Localization SC Generally, an expert would be appointed 
> to perform an initial translation. Attention should be paid 
> to any existing translations of BIEs (e.g. EDI translations). 
> The initial translation should then be reviewed by a group of 
> experts who will look at harmonization and semantic 
> integrity. b. Changes to the process required for maintenance 
> We propose to adopt a versioning scheme to act as an 
> indicator for the change log. Every entry has to be versioned 
> so it is readily identifiable what has changed. c. Changes to 
> the process for translations to the new dictionary entries 
> The environment for translation will be set up, but we won't 
> apply translation until CD 2.0 is finalized. We discussed 
> that a good way of validating the translations is to see that 
> the data when translated is formatted in the right way. For 
> this we need a stylesheet in the different languages. These 
> formatted views could then be used by the LSC review teams to 
> review the translations. Having an abbreviated label for the 
> output media (see above) would assist in this task. We 
> propose to create a project team for this and also support 
> the request from HISC for use-case participants.
> 
> 
> 6. Discussion of possible UBL transition to UN/CEFACT
> In a lengthy and considered discussion, all attendess 
> presented their assessment of the concerns and opportunities 
> of this transition.  The key points were: a. ISO 
> accreditation would be extremely significant for UBL adoption 
> in Asia. Both China and Korea automatically adopt and develop 
> ISO standards. If UN/CEFACT can fast track UBL as an ISO 
> standard it would be attractive.  However we are unsure if 
> OASIS and the MOU still offer an alternative. b. However, the 
> market would be confused if UN/CEFACT published alternative 
> document schemas. c. The reluctance of UN/CEFACT to consider 
> adopting the UBL NDRs does not bode well for integration with 
> other UN/CEFACT work items. d. Of all the areas for UBL, the 
> UN/eDocs (TBG ??) appears the most palatable to both parties. 
> e. A key to ongoing development of UBL will be the 
> willingness of our current memebrs to transition with it.
> 
> 
> Calendar review
> The Danish, British and other scandinavian governments are 
> meeting on May 19th in Copenhagen to discuss UBL. Peter 
> Borresen will provide details to the list. The ebXML Asia 
> Committee meeting will take place in Hong Kong in June. 
> Thomas Lee will provide details We will seek a meeting in 
> Europe in early March 2006, and an additional meeting in 
> Korea in the early May 2006 if appropriate.
> 
> 
> Individual Action Items
> Peter Borresen:
> * will incorporate the IDA requirements in to the 2.0 Issues list
> * with Thomas Lee will liaise with Crimson Logic on the 
> suitability for UBL of the model for digital signatures as 
> provided by the COML project
> * investigate whether a despatch advice can satisfy the 
> information requirements of a rectification advice
> * provide details of the British and other scandinavian 
> governments meeting on May 19th in Copenhagen to the UBL list.
> Saito-san:
> * take the current UBL library and divide it in to contexts. 
> Thomas Lee:
> * document new three-level architecture and send to Saito-san.
> * upload the DTTN codelist approach paper to the UBL list.
> * with Peter Borresen will liaise with Crimson Logic on the 
> suitability for UBL of the model for digital signatures as 
> provided by the COML project
> * provide details of ebXML Asia meeting in Hong Kong.
> Mavis Cournane:
> * lead the discussion in the Atlantic call for the new rules 
> required for the 3 three layers of schemas.
> * lead the discussion in NDR about the need to remove any 
> rules that would not be required now that we are adopting the 
> ATG schemas. In that case do we need any UBL NDR rules about 
> the CoreComponent types. Mikkel Brun:
> * propose a Invoice Rejection message.
> * update extended business process model diagrams
> Tim McGrath:
> * raise the suggestion that once the NDR work is complete 
> that there may be time and resource to pick up the 
> customisation requirements.
> * put back missing Account Response document in the Seller 
> Billed Invoicing diagram.
> * transfer COML requirements onto 2.0 issues list
> Jon Bosak:
> * update UBL web page with link to KRLSC guidelines,
> 
> 
> --
> 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 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_workgr
> oups.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_workgr
> oups.php 
> 
>