index.html (was: Re: [ubl] Agenda for Atlantic UBL TC call 2 November 2005)

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au:]

| yes, i have looked at it but i am not sure what you want to do
| next.  this looks pretty much like the UBL 1.0 index with some
| minor edits to reflect an updated version.

Yup.

| we certainly need to work on the process descriptions (Section 5
| and Appendix B).  I thought we discussed that the processes that
| use these document types should be informative only.  I would
| rather see "UBL in a Procurement context" and "UBL in a
| Tranportation context" as informative appendices. this would allow
| us to include material from the Danish implementation scenarios
| and SBS as part of the procurement context.

I'm planning on putting the implementation scenarios in the
Support Package, but I think it's important to have the existing
outline of the extended procurement process (suitably refreshed)
included in 2.0 itself.  We have to give the schemas *some*
process context, and I'm not even sure at this point that the
process description should be entirely non-normative.

| also, isn't the NDR inteded to be part of this package?

I don't think so.  See the message outlining the Support Package.

| perhaps we should agree on a table of contexts first and then drill down 
| into the details?

Sounds sensible, but I'm actually more concerned to get some of
the essential pieces finished so that they don't put us behind.
The description of schema dependencies, for example.

Jon