[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 27|28 February 2006
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 28 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 SW: X12 meetings 5-9 June 2006, Chicago; 24-29 September, Boston. Liaison report: Tax XML TC SW: ML reported that the indirect taxation groups discussed SG's spreadsheet in detail and the possible extension of the project work in the future. They hope to form a team and begin work in the next 1-2 weeks. Subcommittee report: SBSC We spent some time reviewing the SBSC deliverables and working up a possible time line for 2.0 SBS in light of TM's message: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00096.html 1.0 SBS Has been through its second public review. SG has made a lot of minor changes, including updating version numbers in the process definition files. None of these changes appear to be Substantive Changes according to the definition in the most current OASIS TC process. No comments were received during the public comment period. ACTION: SG to post the public URL for the final 2.0 SBS package. ACTION: JB to request OASIS to set up the ballot for approval of 2.0 SBS as an OASIS Committee Specification. 2.0 UBP (modular business processes for each document) UBP is "universal business processes"; name was suggested by Sacha Schlegel. We will have "UBP 2 for procurement" and "UBP 2 for transport." SG has produced a nearly complete working draft for UBL 2 for procurement. 2.0 SBS (etc.) AGREED that the sample instances for UBL 2.0 should be taken from 2.0 SBS for procurement and that these should form the basis for sample instances illustrating transport. The idea is for all the samples to demonstrate the same use cases (so that the example party data used in an example Waybill, e.g., should be the same as that used in the example Invoice). The pieces are mutually dependent, so the actual development process is apt to be somewhat iterative. Nonetheless, we have to begin an initial public review of 2.0 SBS and UBP for procurement in order to get past the 60-day review period. Then we will create "meaningful example instances" for procurement and use those to create the equivalent sample transport docs. Preliminary timeline - PSC makes procurement examples with input from SBSC (working from the SBS package); it is hoped that ML and PB can spend some of their time in Vancouver working on this, for example by performing a gap analysis between the existing procurement samples and the ones in the 2.0 SBS for procurement. - TSC then makes examples that integrate with the PSC examples, using the same sample data where possible to illustrate complete use cases. - At this point, we judge whether it makes sense to form a 2.0 SBS for transport. If so, we create three more schedule lines: 2.0 SBS for transport (following an initial prototype); UBP 2 for procurement; and UBP 2 for transport. ACTION: JB to fit this into the support package schedule (adding lines for PSC example instances, TSC example instances, 2.0 SBS for transport, UBP 2 for procurement, UBP 2 for transport). ACTION: JB to ballot 2.0 SBS for procurement and UBP 2 for procurement. Liaison report: UN/CEFACT TM: We spent a lot of time in the call last week discussing the difficulties CEFACT is having with using the Open Development Process to recognize externally developed standards. OASIS is supposed to submit a statement detailing what we want in time for another call on Thursday. Subcommittee report: HISC GKH: No meeting Tuesday, but clarified some input goals with Bryan via email. JB was contacted by folks at the Open Document Foundation who are interested in using UBL as an exemplar for XForms; have pulled BR into that conversation. We hope to have two implementations, one by BR and one from OpenDoc, but haven't heard back from them yet. On the output side, working on a method to generate the forms from abstract specifications. So we have a game plan, it's just a matter of finding the cycles. Team report: Code Lists GKH: TonyC is back from vacation; an assumption about empty genericode instances turns out to be incorrect, and am now working out a way around that. SW: We have been getting questions about code lists. Some companies cannot implement the new Code List Methodology; they will use the same method of code list checking that they use for EDI and want to know if this is a customization. JB: In other words, their software can't apply different code list subsets to different document contexts, and they want to know whether it's still UBL 2.0 compliant? SW: Yes. JB/GKH/SG: "UBL 2.0 compliance" means compliance to the UBL 2.0 schemas. Since we externalize most code value checking in 2.0, any method of code value checking is "UBL 2.0 compliant." The Code List Methodology will be a separate specification that can be applied to any set of schemas, not just UBL. So they will not be "UBL Code List Methodology compliant" but they will be "UBL 2.0 compliant." SG: There may be a concern about compliance with the UBL 2.0 NDRs. JB: Only if they are designing their own schemas and referencing UBL 2.0 NDR as a separate specification. Obviously they can't be using our schemas and be in conflict with our NDRs (unless we've made a mistake). AGREED: We need to make sure that mandatory support for the UBL Code List Methodology is not hardwired into the UBL 2.0 NDRs. Subcommittee report: PSC SW: Reviewed issues list; ML will be sending questions to JB and SG. We should identify work to be done in Vancouver. Subcommittee report: TSC AS: Nothing to report this week. Review of Atlantic call SW: We will not be submitting any further requirements for NDR, so DavidK will not be sending the detailed explanation referred to in the Atlantic minutes. After discussion with MichaelD and DavidK, it appears that we have always written our own rules for converting data models to schema and will continue to do so. SG: Will the version attribute be in the schemas? SW: DavidK just received the latest NDR checklist [and will be working on that]. JB: Have not yet logged this in the issues list, but please remember to change instances of "2005" in the copyright to "2006". Schedule review http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00016.html (Regarding the extension proposal from BR) GKH: The way to extend UBL is by allowing the arbitrary use of non-UBL namespaces in UBL instances and applying NVDL, the JTC1 Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language. This is Part 4 of ISO/IEC 19757, which is at FDIS and will soon be an ISO/IEC standard; see dsdl.org. Will suggest this to BR. JB: So we can stick in anything using the DSDL notion of "valid"... GKH: No, when you extract the UBL [using NVDL], it's valid UBL.... Like embedding SVG in XHTML. JB: Which was the whole intent of namespaces from the beginning. This is what TimBL wanted in the first place! I'm much more comfortable with this approach than with ANY. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION: TM to develop a preliminary project plan for integrating the SBS with the 2.0 package and report back 2/28. Sent to the TC: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00096.html ACTION: SW to identify the 1.0 rules corresponding to the ones that need to be put into 2.0 NDR in time for this week's Atlantic call. Closed (see under "Review of Atlantic call" above). Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]