[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 23 November 2005
MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING 16H00 - 18H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 2005 ATTENDANCE Peter Borresen Jon Bosak (chair) Marty Burns Mavis Cournane Stephen Green Mike Grimley Betty Harvey Andy Schoka Paul Thorpe Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm None. Subcommittee and team updates to Pacific call status reports None. Review of Pacific and Europe/Asia calls No comments. Schedule review JB: It's still possible that we can start the initial review before Xmas, but it's going to be tight. CODE LISTS JB: For future reference, the decisions we made in Ottawa can be found at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00042.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00060.html This is still the plan of record. SW: MB appears to be proposing that we replace the UBL 1.0 format for enumerated code lists with a different one. JB: What's the difference? MB: The 1.0 CL format was not extensible using substitution groups or redefines. The proposed format does not require substitution groups, but it does allow their use while still providing all of the features desired by the TC. JB: We've decided that we're not going to use substitution groups for code lists and minor versioning, but I don't think we decided that we weren't going to let anyone else use them. MB: The basic principle is this: substitution groups and redefines must derive from a common base type. UBL 1.0 had no identifier at all and had content types with actual enumerations. The proposal is to make the basic simple type a union of normalized string and enumeration. OAGIS 9 uses the same approach. JB: Any structural problem with this approach? MG: We have a rule against using union; that would have to change. ACTION: NDR editors to investigate the implications of MB's proposal and report back to the TC next week with a summary of the arguments pro and con and (we hope) a recommendation. JB: Note that we will have to decide as a matter of policy whether we want to allow the application of substitution groups by users. SW: The evaluation of MB's proposal will have to include a look and how adoption will impact our decision to adopt ATG schemas and answer the question of how we create the QDT using the genericode approach. SMALL BUSINESS SUBSET JB: We are in receipt of the revised UBL 1.0 Small Business Subset: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00082.html ACTION: TC to review the proposed SBS and be ready to start balloting next week. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION: MB to talk to PB and see if Denmark can help out with business process for input to ebBP. From last minutes: AS: CEFACT has developed business process specs that can be found on the UNECE site under UN/CEFACT: "business requirement specification"... cross-industry invoice. ACTION: SW to upload the UNECE business requirement specifications (BRSs) and notify the list. ACTION: AS to look at the UNECE cross-industry invoice document to see whether there are points that might be relevant to SG's work with the ebBP TC. ACTION: TC members visiting NYC in October or November to check out the Sun facilities and see whether they are suitable for a UBL TC meeting. JB will be coming through in mid-November and will also check then. JB: The rooms look good (much better than Menlo Park), so we're "go" for the meeting in Manhattan the week of 23 January. ACTION: JB to check with ubl-dev to see whether there is any interest in holding a UBL UG meeting that Friday (27 January). MG: Will be staying at the Courtyard by Marriott near Times Square; will forward to the list. ACTION: MB to check with PB regarding time estimates for the business process scenarios. PB: First of February. The first two packages are finished, but will wait for 2.0 schemas. NDR WORK SESSION SW has submitted several questions needing resolution this week: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00121.html Issue 1. The problem is that we need Definition to be optional to avoid the error noted by Altova, but our NDRs, the ATG2 NDRs, and CCTS all require it to be mandatory. AGREED that we should be CCTS compliant, so Definitions should stay mandatory as currently stated in the NDRs. We're going to review the Definitions in the spreadsheets to make sure that one Definition exists for each code list and that it's appropriate to include it in the schemas. If this turns out to be impossible, we will include an empty Definition rather than be CCTS noncompliant. ACTION: SG to check to see where the problem Definitions are and see whether the Definitions can be put in the schemas. SW: There is another CCTS compliance issue: UID. ACTION: NDR editors to review the issue of UIDs and CCTS compliance. Issue 2. AGREED that the correct namespace version should be 2, not 2.0 (per the decision of 9 November). Issue 3. MG: No change to the rule, just to the wording. ACTION: NDR editors to edit the NDR document and modify the text as suggested in email of 7 November. Issue 4. SW: We need to know how the genericode approach is going to impact uDT and qDT... What rules need to be changed wrt ATG2 schema modules? If MB's proposal [see above] is adopted, we can't use ATG code list schemas or CCTS schemas. SG: Or ATG2 would need to adopt the same approach. JB: But the ATG2 position appears to be in flux. ACTION: JB to forward the ATG2 minutes of 14 November and the updated code list schemas of 16 November for use in trying to coordinate with ATG2 on these questions. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]