[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 13|14 February 2006
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2006 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Stephen Green G. Ken Holman Tim McGrath (vice chair) Andy Schoka Kumar Sivaraman Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm None. Liaison report: Tax XML TC SW: The TC is meeting in london next week, but I cannot attend. Liaison report: ebBP TC SG: Can we publish the BPSS definitions for UBL separately from the SBS? The definitions allow implementation of UBL in an ebXML framework; each UBL doc has one or more processes associated with it, and vice versa. The definitions for 1.0 are in the UBL 1.0 SBS package, but now they've become a deliverable in their own right. AGREED (pending concurrence by the Atlantic call) to publish the BPSS process definitions for UBL as a separate specification. Subcommittee report: SBSC SG: Nothing new to report. Will take the ebBP work [above] into SBSC; have pretty much everything needed for 2.0 SBS, and have already published a worst-case version that could be used if we do nothing else. Liaison report: UN/CEFACT JB: The conference call formerly scheduled for 3/16 is being rescheduled. Liaison report: X12 meeting in Seattle KS: Dick Raman spoke; there was much talk about harmonization, but nothing specific. COTG is being renamed the "Harmonization and Outreach Task Group." X12 has given up on convergence and is now just trying for semantic harmonization. The main X12 activities are now in healthcare and insurance. There are opportunities for harmonization in other industry segments. SW: There was discussion of X12 replacing the existing repository with an ebXML repository. Also a high level discussion of how X12 could use the TBG17 library and CCTS methodology. Dan Kazzaz will be speaking in Vancouver. KS/SW: X12 membership is increasing; attendance at the meeting was 527+. Subcommittee report: HISC GKH: Call tomorrow; trying to determine how much more we can do beyond the eight UBL 1.0 docs. Team report: Code Lists GKH: About to send results of analysis; have determined algorithmically that there are about 6 types and info items that are not used in UBL. Plugging away on generation of empty gc files for all of the code lists, plus one association file for each doc and one across all docs. Lots of calculation. The code list proposal is gaining quite a bit of traction on xml-dev; insurance and mortgage think they could use our approach. TonyC has given permission to include 0.3 gc in the Code List spec. Subcommittee report: PSC SW: In a holding pattern, PB on vacation next week. We will start looking at his work next week. Subcommittee report: TSC AS: We're developing some text-based use case descriptions for transport messages that may provide a prototype for how to define messages; our next meeting is this week. Also, we recognize that the issues list is something the TSC should be keeping an eye on in deciding what needs to be attended to following the public review. TM: Some of the isses are questions rather than comments; there's no way to log questions separate from comments. AS: For example, "How do we get clarification on..." JB: I consider most requests for clarification to be comments to the effect that we haven't explained something adequately. E.g., "Issue: it's not clear why..." or "It's not clear how..." The TSC and PSC are expected to be monitoring the issues list and starting work on resolving the issues, including going back to the submitters and asking for further details. From the meeting in Manhattan: AGREED that we will password-protect the issues input form (TC members can use the form, but all others must use the OASIS public comment form). There will be a column/field for category (NDR, PSC, TSC, HISC, SBS1, SBS2, Code lists) and another one for priority (bug, missing functionality, new requirements (RFEs)). We will try to process issues as they come in, with those clearly belonging to PSC handled by PSC, etc., and preliminary dispositions recorded in a separate resolution list. But questions needing clarification before the review can continue pose a special problem. AGREED that requests for clarification from the USDOT will be collated and forwarded by AS to the appropriate SC. AGREED (pending concurrence in the Atlantic call) that SG will fill the position of Inquiry Coordinator so that questions submitted during the review period get forwarded to the appropriate SC or the TC as a whole. Review of Atlantic call JB: Apologies for not having the Atlantic minutes done yet. Schedule review http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00016.html SG: Given the scheduling of the Brussels F2F, we will have to be generating schemas right at the meeting. BRUSSELS F2F We reviewed mail received regarding preferences for the meeting in Brussels. AGREED (pending concurrence in the Atlantic call) to go with the week of 22 May 2006 at CEN/CENELEC in Brussels. TM/GKH: This means that we will have to wind up all the post-review processing and actually start generating schemas at that meeting. Finalization of the code lists also depends on final schemas. SW: We can't get new schemas till we get the [revised] NDR, and there's a good possibility that with the decision to not adopt ATG2 NDR, we will have more than a few minor bug fixes. We are missing rules for UBL to implement the ATG2 schema module; if we're using ATG2 rules, then TSC and PSC will have to redesign their messages to comply with those rules. (ACTION: SW to send a pointer to the ATG rules on UDTs, QDTs, and code lists.) UBL needs to create its own set of NDRs to cover those points listed in email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00042.html Until this is resolved, GEFEG is very worried about meeting the schedule. (Discussion continues below under CODE LIST DECLARATIONS) TAX CERTIFICATION How do we go about obtaining "accreditation" from local tax agencies? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00017.html SW: ML will be attending a Tax XML meeting to discuss this. JB: So let's see what looks possible. UUID, GUID, OID, UID See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00026.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00028.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00029.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00030.html JB: The suggestion is to just adopt "UID." SG/TM: That's what we meant; not a standard UUID or GUID, just something that was globally unique within a given implementation. AGREED (pending concurrence in the Atlantic call) to change GUID to UID and make the definition for UID the one that's currently given for GUID. CODE LIST DECLARATIONS See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00032.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00033.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00034.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00035.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00036.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00037.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00038.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00039.html We note that TonyC and MartyB were assigned the task of writing the NDRs for code lists. This must be added to the NDR items of work. A long, confused discussion took place in which the following points became more or less clear: - We don't need rules that tell people how to implement the ATG rules, because we're not adopting the ATG methodology, just the schemas. We don't want to generate the ATG code list schemas, we just want to import them. - This presents a problem for FX (nee EDIFIX) because the ATG code list schemas are generated from the ATG data models based on the ATG NDRs; the version of FX that's programmed to support UBL doesn't know how to just import a given schema. - We must minute the position that we don't want rules to execute the UDT, we just want to import the schema at schema generation time. That is, by our decision in Manhattan stated as "AGREED that in the interests of convergence we will stand by our decision to import the ATG2 UDT, etc." we need to add that this does NOT mean that we are going to apply the ATG2 RULES (in which case we may need more rules to cover this). - The current SDT is actually UBL's QDT. It is possible that at some point we will have to handcraft a QDT for UBL. ACTION: JB to put the issue on this week's Atlantic agenda. OTHER BUSINESS AGREED that the PSC and TSC should review each other's data models. ACTION: TM to suggest this to the two SCs. AGREED that the code list package currently under construction will initially be based on the schemas in the PRD. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]