Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 12|13 September 2005

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING
00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 13 SEPTEMBER 2005

ATTENDANCE

   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Stephen Green
   Ken Holman
   Tim McGrath
   Kumar Sivaraman
   Sylvia Webb

STANDING ITEMS

Additions to the calendar:
   http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm

   SW: The PSC f2f will be hosted by IDA at the EC building
   complex in Brussels; Tim will be the liaison with IDA.  We will
   need an exact list of attendees.

   ACTION: SW to put out a meeting notice to the ubl and ubl-psc
   lists.

Liaison report: Tax XML TC

   SW: Meeting is two weeks away.

Liaison report: ebBP TC

   SG: Has not attended a meeting yet.  Sent in a sample ebBP spec
   instance as a starting point for discussion.

Subcommittee report: HISC

   GKH: Meetings suspended for the moment to do code list work; ZR
   will investigate form choices and mappings for strawman.

Subcommittee report: SBSC

   SG: Have produced 1.0 files for Altova (JB: Have forwarded);
   2.0 on hold till we have schemas.

Subcommittee report: PSC

   SW: Are continuing to work through spreadsheet issues after
   much analysis and discussion; some changes to EF will need to
   be made. MD sent mail to the list 9/14 with questions, but
   didn't get enough feedback then, has now asked additional
   questions on the list; we need answer back from PB as
   librarian, and TM may need to help.

Subcommittee report: TSC

   TM: In meeting last week, we reviewed the high level model
   prepared by TL and looked at how to use it as a harmonization
   tool between COML and DTTN.  We discussed the interest
   indicated by the USDOT and how they may wish to contribute;
   agreed that we would look forward to receiving their comments
   as part of the review of the transport model.  We also
   discussed digital signatures; CrimsonLogic is now expecting to
   receive a sample instance doc to illustrate the point made by
   PB.  In general we're seeing an improved level of productivity
   and are almost back on schedule.  The TSC is also working on a
   more comprehensive process model to describe what the docs
   we're developing will do.

Team report: Code List

   JB: MartyB sends his regrets. We need to understand his latest
   post on this.  We will study it offline.

   GKH: We need instances of code lists for all of the candidate
   code lists, or at least dummy ones, to demonstrate an
   end-to-end validation process.

   JB: We think that the enum form schema modules in 2.0 will stay
   the same as they were in 1.0 except maybe with nmtoken instead
   of normalized string...

   TM: They are going to have to be the same as in the ATG
   versions.  We think that's xsd:token.

   GKH: Token "represents tokenized strings"... it's more
   restricted than normalized string and less than nmtoken and
   name.

   AGREED: It's our understanding that the type adopted by ATG
   will have to be the type we use, so DavidK should use whatever
   ATG has specified [or is specifying; appears to be a moving
   target].

Team report: Digital Signatures

   See TSC report above.

Team report: Catalogues

   TM: Now finalizing the documentation of the process model,
   candidate components, and document model in the UML form that
   we will be using.  In the next week or so, we will be creating
   UBL spreadsheets.  We're about two weeks away from the first
   set of doc models that can be passed on to the PSC for their
   comments, putting us just about on schedule.  Also, MikkelB is
   operating as liaison between the UBL Catalogue project and the
   CEN/ISSS and TBG 1 catalogue project. He attended a meeting of
   the C Catalogue group in which input was exchanged and received
   favorably on both sides, so the collaboration is quite
   positive.

Review of Atlantic and Europe/Asia calls

   No comments.

Schedule review:
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00167.html

   "Generate UML diagrams for phase 1 schemas"

      Should be supplementary.

      ACTION: JB to contact Dave Carlson.

   "Deliver phase 1 input specs and XForms"

      We haven't heard from MicahD.

   "Deliver phase 1 input specs and XForms"

      Should be supplementary.

   "Develop phase 1 output specs and stylesheets"

      Should be supplementary.

      GKH: Still haven't gotten outside info on form choices and
      mappings.

      ACTION: JB to ping PB regarding form choices and mappings.

ACTION ITEM REVIEW

   ACTION: TM to respond to the Tax XML TC regarding their input
   on tax category.

      Done.

   ACTION: SG to produce new SBS 1.0 "empty" sample instances for
   GKH; GKH to produce XPaths by next week.

      Done.

   ACTION: SW to continue testing schema output and post results
   to PSC.  Can use this week's SSC meeting slot for work on this
   if necessary.

      Done.

   ACTION: TM to document the spreadsheet structure and format by
   the first week of October.  This means a prose description of
   each column in the spreadsheets that we are now using.

      Pending.

FOR THIS MEETING

Agenda item: "MavisC has requested clarification of last week's
Europe/Asia discussion of Specialized DT schemas, in particular
any possible impact that this may have on our NDRs."

   TM: The situation is this.  We have agreed to adopt ATG2
   schemas for CC types and unqualified DTs, so the type defs of
   things like amount and code are given to us by ATG2. But in 1.0
   we specialized some of those, e.g. amount into UBL amount,
   because we wanted to restrict it to the ISO code, and similarly
   for other codes, e.g. ack response code and country code. The
   question is, what are we going to do with these in UBL 2?
   ... Because we've adopted the ATG2 schema for unqualified DTs,
   we have to create our own Qualifed DT schema for qualified data
   types. It will look very much like specialized DTs in UBL 1.

   (Subsequent discussion focused on UBL amount. The issue boils
   down to whether the ATG2 form restricts amount to be an ISO
   currency, in which case we don't need to implement this
   restriction ourselves, or does not, in which case we do.  This
   appears to be the same issue identified earlier with regard to
   the lack of supplementary components in the ATG version and
   also would involve having a version ID in transaction
   instances.)

   ACTION: TM and SG to examine the latest ATG2 draft and report
   back next week as to whether it meets our requirements.

Agenda item: "We need to decide whether the procurement scenarios
being prepared by PB are going to be normative; in other words,
what replaces the UBL 1.0 normative description of the business
process -- the description of the extended procurement process we
adopted recently, or a reworked version of that, or also the
descriptions of the procurement scenarios?"

   AGREED: Expand the normative 1.0 process scenario to include
   new documents, incorporating the already approved extended
   process, in a way that maintains backward compatibility with
   UBL 1.0 business rules; require this to be in index.html
   beginning with the first release, but call it informative, so
   that the only normative part of UBL 2.0 is the schemas.  Add
   descriptions of the transportation and catalogue scenarios as
   those pieces are added.  Include the spreadsheets in every
   release.

   SW: Believe that Robin Cover or Carol Geyer posted a news
   release about the extended process model; we should look at
   that to see whether they have labeled this normative.

   ACTION: JB to find the notice(s) and check to see whether the
   extended process model has been mistakenly characterized as
   normative.

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC