OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ubl] Minutes of the UBL TC meeting in Ottawa 8-12 August 2005


Hello Jon

Please could I request the following adjustments to the minutes:

1/ in the HISC report section
SP: eDocs is more interested in the transportation documents;
   procurement documents are not a high priority.  There really
   are no UNLK equivalents to the extended procurement documents.

should be

SP: UNeDocs is more interested in the cross-border transportation documents;
   procurement documents are not the highest priority.  There really
   are no UNLK equivalents to many of the extended procurement documents
   because they are not directly related to cross-border requirements.

2/ in the UN/UBL TRANSITION discussion

   Sue Probert represented the position of the UN/CEFACT Bureau
   and the CEFACT Forum Management Group (FMG) on this subject as
   follows:

    - CEFACT will not support UBL 2.0 as an ISO standard, because
      it plans to be publishing a number of procurement payload
      standards in addition to UBL.  CEFACT would welcome UBL 2.0
      as a contribution to the CEFACT library, but it cannot
      support UBL as an ISO standard.

    - It is not in the remit of ISO TC 154 to standardize payload
      formats.

    - CEFACT will not provide technical assistance in readying UBL
      2.0 for ISO standardization.

should be

   Sue Probert represented the position of the UN/CEFACT Bureau
   and the CEFACT Forum Management Group (FMG) on this subject as
   follows:

    - CEFACT cannot support UBL 2.0 as a single procurement standard,
because
      it plans to publish a number of different contextually defined
      procurement payload eBusiness standards in addition to UBL.  CEFACT
      would, however, welcome the specific UBL 2.0 procurement scenario as a
      contribution to the CEFACT library, but it could not support UBL as an
      ISO standard.

    - CEFACT does not consider the standardization of payload
      specifications to be within the current remit of ISO TC 154.

    - CEFACT cannot therefore provide technical assistance in readying UBL
      2.0 for ISO standardization.

thanks and regards

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: jon.bosak@sun.com [mailto:jon.bosak@sun.com]
Sent: 18 August 2005 17:44
To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl] Minutes of the UBL TC meeting in Ottawa 8-12 August 2005


##################################################################
MINUTES OF THE UBL TC MEETING IN OTTAWA 8-12 AUGUST 2005
##################################################################

ATTENDANCE

Members attending in person

   MTWThF  Jon Bosak (chair)*
   MTWThF  Peter Borresen
   MTWThF  Mavis Cournane*
   MTWThF  Mike Grimley*
   MTW     Betty Harvey
   MTWThF  Anne Hendry*
   MTWThF  G. Ken Holman*
   MTWTh   Sun-Hyuk Kim
   MTWThF  Zarella Rendon*
   MTWThF  Sylvia Webb*

Members attending by phone

    TW     Mark Crawford (vice chair)*
   M  Th   Mikkel Brun*
        F  Marty Burns*
     WThF  Tony Coates*
   MTWThF  Stephen Green*
      ThF  Monica Martin
    T   F  Tim McGrath*
   MT   F  Sue Probert*
   MT ThF  Paul Thorpe*
        F  Peter Yim

   * Current voting members

Guests attending by phone

    T      Christian Christensen

All of the plenary sessions were quorate.

##################################################################
MONDAY MORNING PLENARY 8 AUGUST 2005
##################################################################

REPORTS

HISC report (G. Ken Holman)

   Input specs: Micah Dubinko has been hired by Yahoo and is in
   the process of moving to Sunnyvale; we don't know whether Yahoo
   will support his continuing work on UBL.  He has received no
   input from the XML or UBL communities.

   At the Extreme Markup conference, Yves M. of Montreal expressed
   interest in prose presentation of UBL instances; this might
   lead to speech synthesis presentation.  Further developments
   will be reported in HISC.

   The HISC is expecting a productive week.  We're looking for a
   formalism for the UN Layout Key and expect to make our own,
   interleaved with a prose spec for any vendor to implement.  The
   formalism will use the ISO 3535 grid to synthesize reports.
   Can eDocs offer any help with mappings from the new procurement
   documents to the UNLK?

   SP: eDocs is more interested in the transportation documents;
   procurement documents are not a high priority.  There really
   are no UNLK equivalents to the extended procurement documents.

SBSC report (Stephen Green)

   See
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00015.html

SSC report (Anne Hendry)

   We laid out our schedule and dependencies in Hangzhou.  Some
   changes were included in the last set of schemas, sent out, and
   reviewed by SG; DavidK is now back from vacation. We've had
   some code list discussions, but still have dependencies.  We're
   hoping to finalize the schema generation soon.

   SW: We haven't focused on automating input of the data models
   (the spreadsheets); so far we've been doing this by hand.  We
   need the data models semifinalized so that we can automate
   this.

   JB: That's our content objective for this week.

KRLSC report (Kim, Sung Hyuk)

   See
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00014.html

   AGREED to approve change of KRLSC maintainer from KCALS to
   KIEC.  KRLSC will attend Pacific TC calls.

NDR Team report (Mike Grimley and Mavis Cournane)

   Substitution groups: we're waiting for a technical finding from
   Marty, Tony, and Stephen.

   We need to finalize the evaluation of ATG2 data type schema
   adoptions, specifically with regard to code lists, and we need
   to clarify the requirements for versioning.  We need to finish
   the NDR document.

Code List Team report

   JB: We aim to have a finding by Wednesday morning and are also
   reserving Thursday afternoon for a more detailed discussion.

Tax XML Liaison report (Sylvia Webb)

   There will be a conference call Thursday with the Tax XML TC to
   discuss SBS Invoice; will have comments following that.

TBG17 Liaison report

   None.

Report from Denmark (Peter Borresen)

   See
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00016.html

   PB: Four million invoices exchanged as of July 1, 60 percent in
   native XML and the rest converted from scans.  Electronic
   approval is not implemented in all institutions, so a lot of
   printouts are still needed for internal approval.  For
   printouts, we have made our own stylesheets from the UBL
   XSLT. Printouts can be made from a tool on the internet at the
   same place we provide Schematron validation.  Scanning is done
   at government expense, but it's still cheaper than typing it
   in.

   E-invoicing has become broadly accepted and is beginning to
   fade from the headlines.  Not quite as many invoices are being
   received as originally estimated, but the saving in time is as
   good as or a little better than originally estimated.  Some
   invoicers are not happy with the higher level of quality
   imposed by electronic validation, but there are no complaints
   about the idea; now people are asking for electronic auditing.

   In 2007 we will have a law for public procurement: all noncash
   transactions will have to be done electronically with a match
   between order and invoice (though we will not be using just
   those two documents).  We intend for the DK localization of UBL
   2.0 to be as close as possible to the international version.

   JB: I want our objective to be support for the DK requirements
   out of the box so that their customization consists entirely of
   restrictions; this is how we will accomplish exchange across
   borders.

   PB: The catalogue workshop [see slides] is not intended to
   create a superset of all catalogue standards as in TBG1, but
   rather to identify what's most commonly used.  The Danish
   workshop 9 August has about 30 participants, with international
   workshops scheduled for 15-16 August and 12-13 October.

Other reports

   SG: Will be meeting with Tim 18 August in Copenhagen.

Calendar review

   Nothing to add to the calendar.

##################################################################
TUESDAY MORNING PLENARY 9 AUGUST 2005
##################################################################

2005/2006 UBL 2.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE REVIEW

   See
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200507/msg00094.html

   The 2005/2006 schedule was discussed in some detail and various
   minor changes were made to the matrix.  See minutes for Friday
   plenary below for specifics about upcoming F2F TC meetings.

   Christian Christensen: August 2006 is OK for OASIS
   standardization, but we need to hold to this.

   ACTION: Bryan Rasmussen to find expertise for UNLK mapping.

   ACTION: PeterB to create typical extended procurement scenarios
   (more detailed than in the SBS package) beginning the second
   week after this meeting.

   ACTION: JonB to add a row for this to the schedule matrix and
   publish a revised matrix.

UBL CERTIFICATION

   PB: We want to certify that different software produces the XML
   documents in the same way.

   JB: Is this different from validation?

   PB: Validation doesn't tell you about the semantics.  You can't
   check that a value is actually filled out, or that one value
   hasn't been accidentally swapped for another.  If we find an
   error, we want to make sure that the software producer checks
   for it.

   GKH: Had some experience setting up XML conformance testing in
   OASIS.  We decided not to address certification but instead
   equip people to do the certification themselves.  The issues
   were legal liability and the resources to do this properly.
   There are companies that specialize in certification, so maybe
   we need some kind of test suite that a certification agency
   could use.

   JB: Don't see how we can do this given our present resources.

   PB: Maybe we could require that producers include the ID of
   their software version in the instance.

   JB/GKH: You could require in DK that the producer include a PI
   specifying the software.  Maybe we could include this in "best
   practices and techniques" (which would therefore include both
   business best practices and software best practices).

   SG: We should call these "design patterns."

   SP: Like MIGs in EDI.

   JB/GKH: It should be the job of user communities in ubl-dev to
   specify these.

   JB: How would the SBS be specified?

   SG: "If you are going to be using ebXML, then you should be
   putting this information in CPP" for example.

   AGREED that we can accomplish what's needed here in a way that
   does not affect validation.

##################################################################
WEDNESDAY MORNING PLENARY 10 AUGUST 2005
##################################################################

SUBSTITUTION GROUPS AND CODE LISTS

   This discussion was reported separately for the benefit of
   participants; see

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00042.html

   The discussion continued in a plenary session Thursday
   afternoon; see below for URL to the report of that session.

CCTS DATA TYPE SCHEMAS

   We have registered issues regarding supplementary components,
   amount type, and namespace versioning, and we hope that they
   are resolved in a way that meets the requirements of our users.
   However, the NDR editors are in agreement to adopt the ATG2 UDT
   and CCT schema modules regardless of the disposition of the
   issues we've raised.

   AGREED that we will take out all the NDR rules regarding
   creation of the UDT and CCT schema modules. We are assuming (1)
   that changes to the ATG2 versions of these schema modules
   between now and the time these modules are finalized can be
   accommodated simply by swapping out the current versions for
   the new ones without breaking the rest of our schemas, and (2)
   that the issues we've raised, in particular the legal
   requirement to have code list versions specified in document
   instances, will be considered by the CCTS working group.

   ACTION: MikkelB to forward the statute showing the legal
   requirement to MarkC.

   ACTION: MarkC to make sure that these issues are on the agenda
   of the CCTS meeting in Brussels next month.

   SG: Note an issue with ATG2 code list schemas: these are part
   of a package that includes currencies, units of measure,
   languages, and MIME media types (but not countries); will this
   mean that we have to use the enumeration-in-schema approach to
   code lists anyway?

   SW: These four are just a drop in the bucket; this should not
   affect our consideration of the other approach [see code list
   discussion referenced above].

   JB: So these are hardwired...

   SG: Perhaps we could still define our own versions by creating
   a specialized data type.

   MC [not clear whether this means Mark or Mavis]: We could
   restrict the data type by identifying an alternative ...

   AGREED that industry code lists are the real problem, not the
   four standard lists included in the ATG2 schemas.  So there
   should be an NDR that if there is already a code list in the
   ATG2 set, we don't create our own.

   AGREED that the NDR editors should make all changes necessary
   to reflect the decision to include ATG2 schema modules and code
   lists.

##################################################################
THURSDAY MORNING PLENARY 11 AUGUST 2005
##################################################################

PHASE 1 PROCUREMENT MODELS (OUTPUT OF TUE/WED WORK SESSIONS)

   SW/AH: We've gone through the content issues list, and only a
   few remain.  We can now start working on the spreadsheets, but
   we need input from the Tax XML TC; the spreadsheets should be
   done next week.  We also need to synchronize the UML models,
   but our first priority is finishing first drafts of the
   spreadsheets for input to EDIFIX.  We will establish an ad hoc
   call schedule next week to work on this.  The decisions about
   CCT schemas [see Wednesday minutes above] need to be conveyed
   to DavidK; no other NDR changes appear to affect schema
   generation.  So the only big schema issue left is code lists.
   We will wait for the first set of generated schemas to check
   for proper implementation of all the schema changes.

   MavisC/MG: The NDR team will need approval of changes to the
   NDR document.

   ACTION: JB to add NDR doc approval in row 4 of the matrix at
   8/22 and move the update to 8/13; approval to be added to the
   agenda for the Atlantic TC call 8/22.

PROCUREMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SC PROPOSALS

   See
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00031.html
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00032.html

   AGREED to adopt the prosals to create UBL Procurement and UBL
   Transportation Subcommittees as submitted.

DIGITAL SIGNATURES

   PB has proposed an approach to digital signatures:

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00050.html

   AGREED that we should form an ad hoc team to work on digital
   signatures.

   ACTION: Anyone interested in working on digital signatures
   should contact Peter Borresen so that he can arrange a time for
   calls.  (It is assumed that the participants in this discussion
   other than Peter will come chiefly from Asia.)

##################################################################
THURSDAY AFTERNOON PLENARY 11 AUGUST 2005
##################################################################

SUBSTITUTION GROUPS AND CODE LISTS

   This continuation of Wednesday morning's discussion (see above)
   was reported separately for the benefit of participants; see

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00060.html

##################################################################
FRIDAY MORNING PLENARY 12 AUGUST 2005
##################################################################

UN/UBL TRANSITION

   See

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00022.html
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00051.html

   The group identified the following key issues with the
   transition draft in its current form:

    - Apparent unwillingness of CEFACT to promote UBL 2.0 as an
      international standard (note that the second version of the
      transition draft sent 11 August 2005 does not contain a
      reference to this and therefore does not represent the
      outcome of the last joint UN/UBL call on this subject).

    - Potential future IPR problems that cannot be resolved in the
      absence of a stable CEFACT IPR policy.

    - Relationships with other related OASIS technical committees.

   Discussion revolved around the first of these issues.

   Sue Probert represented the position of the UN/CEFACT Bureau
   and the CEFACT Forum Management Group (FMG) on this subject as
   follows:

    - CEFACT will not support UBL 2.0 as an ISO standard, because
      it plans to be publishing a number of procurement payload
      standards in addition to UBL.  CEFACT would welcome UBL 2.0
      as a contribution to the CEFACT library, but it cannot
      support UBL as an ISO standard.

    - It is not in the remit of ISO TC 154 to standardize payload
      formats.

    - CEFACT will not provide technical assistance in readying UBL
      2.0 for ISO standardization.

   UBL TC members made the following points:

    - International standardization of UBL has been one of our
      primary goals from the beginning of the project.  This is
      what our users (for example, the government of Denmark)
      want, and this is what we have been working to create.

    - We have seen UBL as the missing part of ebXML (now ISO
      15000) from the start of the project; indeed, providing a
      standard payload format for ebXML was the motivating factor
      in beginning this effort.

    - The elimination of "competing XML business-to-business
      document standards" is what the UBL TC is explicitly
      chartered to accomplish.  CEFACT's intention to foster the
      creation of multiple payload formats is directly opposed to
      this goal.  Transitioning UBL to CEFACT would not guarantee
      interoperability with the alternative payload formats being
      developed by CEFACT.

    - The argument that fast-tracking UBL 2.0 into ISO 15000 would
      create maintenance problems ignores the fact that other
      specifications that are already part of ISO 15000 are
      likewise maintained by OASIS technical committees and are
      already undergoing revision.

    - While OASIS can use its Class A Liaison status to submit UBL
      2.0 to TC 154, the overlap between the TC 154 membership and
      the CEFACT leadership would render this effort futile in the
      absence of active and sincere CEFACT support.

    - It appears that anything UBL can accomplish as part of
      CEFACT can be accomplished just as easily outside of CEFACT.
      So absent CEFACT support for UBL 2.0 standardization and
      technical assistance in readying UBL for ISO
      standardization, we cannot see any benefit to UBL in making
      a transition to CEFACT.

   Outcomes of the discussion were as follows:

      AGREED that we will report to the UN/UBL team that the UBL
      TC cannot at present see anything to be gained in the
      pursuit of its goals from a transition to CEFACT.

      AGREED that we will finish UBL 2.0 before revisiting this
      question.

      AGREED that in the meantime, we will investigate
      alternatives to ISO TC 154 as possible venues for the
      international standardization of UBL.

END-OF-WEEK SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

HISC report (GKH)

   ZR has written up style sheets.  We have distinguished UN
   definition files from UBL's use of the definition files, which
   will allow us when finished to make the output specs available
   for other technologies.  We now have a process to produce an fs
   directory as in UBL 1.0. No progress has been made on the input
   side, and that part of the project is in jeopardy for 2.0 (this
   is not a technical problem but rather a resource problem).  We
   have therefore achieved phase 0 implementation, and now all we
   need is assistance in associating the new UBL procurement
   documents with the UNLK equivalents and mapping the relevant
   data elements to specific fields in the UNLK.  Denmark is
   looking for resources to help with this.

NDR report (MG/MavisC)

   The NDR editors made excellent progress this week,
   incorporating all the changes required to reflect that we are
   using the UN/CEFACT UDT and core component type schema modules.
   This has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of
   NDRs proposed for UBL 2.0.  As of yesterday, we believe that we
   have a stable document, a copy of which has been sent out to
   the full TC for review:

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00054.html
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00055.html
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00056.html
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00057.html

   We expect that feedback to these revisions will result in
   changes that are editorial rather than substantive.

SSC report (AH/SW)

   Decisions regarding the ATG2 schema modules have been reported
   to DavidK.  We have decided on a format for input spreadsheets
   and put it out to the list for review (see link from the
   following):

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00070.html

   DavidK has confirmed that the spreadsheet format is OK.

Content work (SG)

   We accomplished a first pass through all of the new document
   types. The content modeling is now sufficient for testing in
   EDIFIX.  Catalogue work currently underway may impact item
   structure and the Quote and Request for Quote documents.

   AH: It would be good to get some preliminary input on that.

   PB: We hope to get input from the catalogue workshop next week,
   perhaps even a first draft of the Catalogue message.

   SG: We have also just updated the SBS for phase 0 based on new
   versions of the old doc types, and we're about to start on SBS
   for the new doc types.

   SW: The Tax XML TC has responded to our inquiry regarding the
   SBS:

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00072.html

   Everyone read the SBS, and some of the comments are
   substantive.  There will be a further response later.

2006 MEETING SCHEDULE

   AGREED that we will hold the next UBL TC meeting 23-27 January
   2006 on the U.S. east coast.  Depending on the availability of
   facilities, the TC preferences are (in descending order) New
   York City, downtown Washington, and suburban Washington
   (e.g. Gaithersburg or Tyson's Corner).

   ACTION: JB to investigate the availability of facilities at Sun
   Microsystems sales offices in NYC.

   AGREED that we will move the April 2006 TC meeting to the week
   of 24-28 April to avoid a conflict with Easter and that we will
   use the extra two weeks for comment triage and some comment
   disposition.  This is based on the assumption that we won't
   have too many changes resulting from comment disposition and
   that we can therefore tighten up the production schedule
   immediately following the meeting.  Depending on the
   availability of facilities, the TC preferences are (in
   descending order) Brussels (to foster closer contact with the
   EU community) followed by either Copenhagen or Berlin.

   ACTION: JB to solicit a host in Brussels on the ubl mail list.

THANK YOU TO CRANE

   The UBL TC thanks Crane Softwrights (and in particular Kathryn
   Holman) for their marvellous hospitality and assistance in
   every aspect of meeting logistics.

THANK YOU TO ADOBE

   The UBL TC thanks Adobe Ottawa for the use of its excellent
   meeting rooms and its help in providing print and AV services.

   ACTION: GKH to write a letter conveying our thanks to Adobe.

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





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]