UBL TC Plenary Minutes Brussels F2F May 23 2006

[Mavis Cournane <mavis.cournane@cognitran.com>]

Dear all
please find below the minutes of today's TC plenary meeting.
Please note there are action items and recommendations for the TC 
coming out of this discussion that should be reviewed on the next 
Atlantic and Pacific calls.

Regards
Mavis
-------------
UBL Plenary Tues May 23rd

Roll Call
Mavis Cournane (acting chair)
Peter Borresen
Mark Leitch
Sunho Kim
Sung Hyuk Kim
Bryan Rasmussen
Karsten Tolle
Paul Thorpe
Freddy De Vos
Stephen Green
Sylvia Webb
Tim McGrath (phone)
Andy Schoka (phone)

1. Stephen Green presented a report on the work of the SBSC. See slides 
posted to the list for further details.
Tim McGrath believes that customization needs to be addressed by the TC 
as a whole.
Mavis Cournane agreed but indicated that this was not on the critical 
path for this week's F2F.
A customization white paper will be produced by Ken Holman assisted by 
Stephen Green.

2. Discussion on the UBL/UN CEFACT next steps document by Tim McGrath.
Mavis Cournane, acting chair, reminded those present that they were not 
quorate and any discussions this week will have to be fed back to the 
TC for final approval

The following recommendations to the TC are made.

1. Tim McGrath should make the following amendments to his next steps 
document
(a) Remove named individuals
(b) Remove timings
(c) Seek approval from the UBL TC to send this revised document as the 
plan to UN/CEFACT

2. The UBL TC should review the UBL 2.0 timing plan along with Tim's 
next step documents and identify appropriate time slots for the 
migration activities that will not impact the timing of 2.0.

3. For each work item on the plan, UBL should solicit formal UBL 
Liaisions to participate in each of the activities. These should be 
empowered to work on behalf of the TC and should report back.

4. The UBL TC should inform CEFACT as soon as decided on timeframes to 
participate in the TBG1 alignment activities and the CCTS alignment 
activities.

Other discussion points and action items arising out of this discussion 
are:
1. An informal gap analysis of the Invoice and Remittance documents has 
been carried out by the PSC as part of their work on UBL 2.0. 
Additionally, the Danish government has solicited a formal technical 
gap analysis of the differences between TBG1 documents and UBL 
documents. They will make this information available both to the UBL  
TC and CEFACT. This can form the basis for future work.
2. Members of the TC do not have a mutual understanding on what the 
scope is to introduce new document types to the second public review 
period. These would normally be expected to arise out of Public Review 
1. At the Brussels F2F it was decided that the advice of the entire TC 
would be sought and guidelines drawn up.