[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]