[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 13 July 2005
MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING 15H00 - 17H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 13 JULY 2005 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Tony Coates Mark Crawford Mike Grimley Anne Hendry Sue Probert Bryan Rasmussen Zarella Rendon Paul Thorpe Kumar Sivaraman Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm) MC: 19-22 September 2005 CCTS working group meeting in Brussels; 23 September TC 154 meeting in the same place. Will need a UBL update for the TC 154 meeting. Liaison report: ATG MC: ATG met in Kongsburg and dealt with a number of issues, including the task given by FMG to evaluate the practicality of the two-schema proposal for accommodating UBL NDR as a parallel specification and two days spent on a discussion of local/global that included the chief architect from OAGI. With regard to local/global, OAGI conveyed input coming from both IBM and Microsoft pushing for a more global approach as essential to extensibility and WSDL requirements. The group ultimately decided to change their NDRs in a more global direction, so that all ASBIEs except for one type (didn't remember which) will be global. With regard to the parallel schema proposal, the group validated that it does appear to work, though changes (chiefly wrt namespaces and modularity models) will have to be made to the UBL NDRs if/when they come into CEFACT; perhaps a single common reusable rather than a common basic and a common aggregate, or maybe a common aggregate for all the BIEs that are used for more than just UBL. The group is coming to realize that we are going to have to namespace-control the common reusable modules to tie them to a specific context; this requires additional exploration. In sum, UBL will have to make some accommodations, but nothing fundamental. SW: What are the business benefits of two sets of NDRs? MC: It allows users who want the benefits of global scoping to have them, and the users who want the benefits of local scoping to have them, while validating the same instances. MC: Another couple of issues from the meeting: 1. ATG2 is adamant that it will not allow substitution groups, and 2. it is adamant that there will only be one set of code lists that follow the CEFACT approach. So we have to be aware of these positions. Liaison report: CEFACT plenary SP: The major development with regard to UBL was the signing of the agreement between OASIS and UN/CEFACT; the next step is to put details under that agreement. ACTION: JB to forward a copy of the OASIS/CEFACT agreement to the ubl list. [Done.] Subcommittee reports None (see Pacific call). Team reports None (see Pacific call). Review of Pacific and Europe/Asia calls From this week's Pacific call: | PENDING ACTION: JonB to schedule a discussion of CCTS | compliance that will include MarkC and MichaelD. | | AGREED that MarkC and MichaelD need to agree on whether UBL | is or is not CCTS compliant. Discussion: MC and MD may or may not disagree on compliance; it's not clear. Maybe we should send an inquiry to Gunther Stuhec as chair of the CCTS technical specification project with copies to MC and Mary Kay Blantz: Is UBL 1.0 CCTS compliant, and if not, what needs to be done to make it compliant? DECISION ON REUSABLE See the minutes of this week's Pacific TC call. Are we all OK with this now? MC: There is nothing normative about the spreadsheets, so we can segment the libraries however we want; that's not a CCTS issue. A submission to TBG17 must be in their format and follow TBG17 procedures, which means (1) the CCs and BIEs can be stored in the ebXML registry per section 7, and (2) They must be constructed according to the CC and BIE rules in section 6. TBG17 has been careful to design their spreadsheets to capture this information, including the context column; we can't harmonize CCs without the context information and the underlying CC. ACTION: Someone needs to compare our spreadsheets with the ones required by TBG17 following the TBG17 discussion 7/14. AGENDA FOR OTTAWA MEETING MC/SP: Will try to participate by phone. JB: Everyone who wants to participate by phone should send me a note about their availability (or rather, the times that they will NOT be available) before we try to set the detailed schedule. ACTION ITEM REVIEW (FROM MEETING OF 29 JUNE) PENDING ACTION: JonB to ask for a volunteer to serve as liaison to TBG17. Status: TimM will do this for the time being. PENDING ACTION: We are hoping for input from Henry Thompson regarding a way to accommodate Code Lists without using substitution groups. MC: What was the question to Henry Thompson? JB: See minutes for last couple of months. [In email, Mavis has indicated that Marty Burns is now talking to Henry directly about this.] BR: Henry suggested redefines; I've had a bad experience with that, so started a discussion on schema-dev; the general opinion was that substitution groups don't have problems across processors, while redefines do. MC: ATG prohibits redefines as well as substitution groups. SW: What solution does ATG recommend? MC: We define the normative code schemas, so we don't need a solution; the solution is needed for customizers. TC: This is also needed to manage version changes. JB: Note that this is a primary agenda item for the TC call next week. Mark will be unavailable for that call, so let's try for preliminary discussion in email. MC: We need to distinguish between what we do in our own NDRs and what customizers do; the same applies to code lists. BR: The current NDRs don't talk about customization. MC/JB: The purpose of the UBL NDRs is the creation of our own normative schemas. JB: Customization is a big issue for us, but we have to defer discussion of it until after the Ottawa meeting so that we can maintain our schedule. MC: And we must take into account CCTS "context." CEFACT will be addressing this after the meeting in Lyon. PENDING ACTION: MavisC to send input to MarkC for ATG (see item #6 in the minutes of the 1 June Eurasia call). [From last meeting: StephenG: DavidK reports an updated set of CCTS schemas that appear to include the 1.0 attributes we need; we need to check on this next meeting. The key is whether we actually have a channel here for conveying our inputs to ATG2. And we need to know whether ATG2 has updated the schemas; the ones we have say "draft."] MC: ATG has updated the CCTS schemas, and I believe they are final pending feedback from implementation verification. We hope to have the rules voted by ATG before Lyon and should be able to send a stable set in the next couple of weeks. Have asked MavisC to supply the two UBL attributes still missing from the CC types. [Mavis has informed the chair by mail that she has mailed MC about this.] PENDING ACTION: JonB to review the current TC process and determine whether the SBS should be moved forward as a committee draft or a committee specification, the primary requirement being for a persistent URL. Status: Still pending. PENDING ACTION: JonB to contact KRLSC to see whether the June 2006 meeting can be hosted in Seoul. Status: Still pending. PENDING ACTION: JonB to seek a host for a March 2006 meeting in Brussels. Status: Still pending. PENDING ACTION: JonB to revise the FAQ linked from the UBL TC page. Status: Still pending. NDR WORK SESSION Work item: "Sign off on the 1.0 SBS." No objections to adopting it. [So the TC has signed off on this, and we are now waiting on JB's determination noted above.] Work item: Check on whether CCTS provides a mechanism for categorizing elements by domain that could be used to address the requirement to subdivide the Reusables. SP: This is a difficult subject, as things can be used in many different contexts. The Context column should identify the context in which ABIEs and BIEs should be registered; it's not for categorizing reusable components. JB: As this will be discussed in TBG17, we should pick this up after we see the outcome of that thinking. FOR NEXT WEEK Discuss use of ATG2 data type schemas. Check on the status of CCTS schemas wrt attributes needed for UBL. Continue the discussion of ANY and the other requests from BryanR, to wit: (1) A reconsideration of our prohibition of XSD ANY, because there are regional laws requiring the inclusion of specific information, and we need an extensible content area to handle this; (2) Restrictions on strings in UBL content to ensure that the content consists of more than white space, for example through length or minlength facets [MG: This may relate to the CCTS schema item.]; (3) Reconsideration of our prohibition of appinfo, because there are many cases where one element is conditional on another; this would give Scehamatron (for example) the data it needs to do conditional/contextual validation. Formulate a specific question or set of questions regarding CCTS compliance (see under "Review of Pacific and Europe/Asia calls" above). Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]