[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 30 November 2005
MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING
16H00 - 18H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 30 NOVEMBER 2005
ATTENDANCE
Peter Borresen
Jon Bosak (chair)
Mikkel Brun
Marty Burns
Tony Coates
Mavis Cournane
Stephen Green
Mike Grimley
Betty Harvey
Zarella Rendon
Andy Schoka
Sylvia Webb
STANDING ITEMS
Additions to the calendar:
http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm
None.
ACTION: JB to send Manhattan meeting notice to the list.
Subcommittee and team updates to Pacific call status reports
No changes.
Review of Pacific call
No comments.
Schedule review
JB: Doesn't look good for a December public review.
CODE LIST QUESTIONS
Question for the TC: Can the first code list methodology
document (applying the schematron approach to UBL 1.0 code
lists) become a UBL 1.0 CD?
AGREED that this sounds like an OK idea.
Question for TonyC: Was it expected that UBL would standardize
genericode or just point to it?
TonyC: OK to include; no encumbrances; whatever works.
AGREED that we can include the code list schema in the 2.0
spec. We can either define a subset of the whole genericode
schema or include the whole thing but use only part of it.
SMALL BUSINESS SUBSET
We are supposed to sign off on the SBS this week:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00082.html
We discussed how USDOT might use the SBS methodology to define
subsets of the UBL 2.0 transportation documents... and how we
might use USDOT requirements to define the UBL 2.0 SBS... but
we didn't sign off on the 1.0 SBS! Let's finish this up in the
Pacific call.
ACTION ITEM REVIEW (GENERAL)
ACTION: MikkelB to talk to PB and see if Denmark can help out
with business process for input to ebBP.
Changed to:
ACTION: DK team to review the ebBP UBL transactions when
they become available next week.
ACTION: SW to upload the UNECE business requirement
specifications (BRSs) and notify the list.
Done.
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.
Changed to:
ACTION: AS to send the list of definitions from the UNECE
cross-industry invoice document to the list.
ACTION: AS to send Section 3, Terms and Definitions, from
ISO CD 24533 to the list.
ACTION ITEM REVIEW (NDR)
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.
The proposal specifies the format for whatever enumerated
codelist schemas are included in 2.0; it's been demonstrated
that the proposed format is consistent with the genericode
approach. The question is whether it is CCTS compliant and
whether it conflicts with the ATG UDT.
AGREED (in advance of testing): we will extend the codetype
in the ATG2 UDT schema to be the union of the UDT code type
and an enumeration -- each enumeration being a restriction
on the UDT code type. This doesn't change our decision to
adopt the ATG2 UDT schema. (The token will just happen to be
part of an enumeration.)
ACTION: NDR editors to reflect this decision in the NDRs.
ACTION: MartyB to test this approach against the latest
draft 2.0 schemas (draft 10, sent out by PB about a week
ago); will try to have this done next week. SW to generate
the schema test package for this.
ACTION: TC to review the questions posed by MG:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00138.html
ACTION: SG to check to see where the problem Definitions are
and see whether the Definitions can be put in the schemas
[relating to issue 1 in last week's NDR work session].
SG: The defs are all there in one version of the QDT
spreadsheets. The last QDT sent should have had the defs in
the definition column.
SW: Will look at that.
ACTION: NDR editors to review the issue of UIDs and CCTS
compliance.
MG: We looked in the archives and found that we originally
had the UIDs in there, but then the group assumed that the
UID would be assigned by the registry.
SW: If any process modifies our content, even for a UID,
that seems to be counter to what a standards organization
should do... The UID is assigned in the schema. If assigned
after the fact, then every instance of the schema can have a
different set of unique identifiers. Should this really be
a value added after the fact?
JB: The dictionary entry name is the unique identifier. The
UID is completely redundant. This is so stupid.
SW: But it's in CCTS 2.01. It's mandatory: 6 digits with
leading zeroes.
MG: The UID goes in the documentation section.
AGREED: SW is right, we need to assign UIDs in the schema.
But we don't really care how it's done.
ACTION: SW to suggest a practical mechanical way to assign
the UIDs.
ACTION: NDR editors to edit the NDR document and modify the
text as suggested in email of 7 November [relating to issue 3
in last week's NDR work session].
Done.
ACTION: NDR editors to ensure that all mentions of importing
the CCTS parameter schema have been removed.
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.
Done.
OTHER BUSINESS
December meetings: We will meet as usual 12/7 and 12/14 but not
12/21 or 12/28. Regular Atlantic TC calls will resume 1/4.
We note that MG, MC, and SW cannot attend next week's Atlantic
call.
Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]