Re: [ubl] UBL TC Plenary Minutes Brussels F2F May 23 2006

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

Mavis Cournane wrote:

>
> 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.  
>
my personal response to this item are included below. 

i am not sure what guidelines are being referred to as OASIS has plenty 
of these and the UBL TC has agreed to the the timetable outlined in the 
current project schedule.  for reference, i have included the relevant 
OASIS policies below.

also note this discussion is only about schemas. these are the only 
normative part of UBL.  anything else (such as the documentary support 
package) can be modified up until we submit to the Committee 
Specification to OASIS.

> Before the TC can approve its Committee Draft as a Committee 
> Specification the
> TC must conduct a public review of the work.

and

> The TC may conduct any number of review cycles (i.e. approval to send a
> Committee Draft to Public Review, collecting comments, making edits to the
> specification, etc.). The first public review of a specification must 
> take place for a
> minimum of 60 days, and any subsequent reviews must be held for a 
> minimum of
> 15 days. Changes made to a specification after a review must be 
> clearly identified
> in any subsequent review, and the subsequent review shall be limited 
> in scope
> to changes made in the previous review.

and

> The specification may not be considered for
> approval by the TC as a Committee Specification until it has undergone 
> a review
> cycle during which it has received no comments that result in Substantive
> Changes to the specification.

so when we want to issue a Committee Specification (the pre requisite to 
being sent to OASIS for ratification as a Technical Specification) we 
have to have publicly reviewed the schemas being approved.  that is, we 
are allowed no changes to the schemas after the last public review.

as far as what we are allowed to change between reviews the rules are...

> If Substantive Changes are made to the specification after the public 
> review,
> whether as a result of public review comments or from Member input, 
> then the TC
> must conduct another review cycle. 

as planned, the purpose of the second review is to present the actual 
schemas we want to propose for UBL 2.0.  the scope of the second review 
is only to review the changes made since the first review.  this would 
include requested new document types.

my believe is that the actions we plan are correct under the "letter of 
the law". but we also should consider what is fair to the UBL community 
and the public openness of the process. for example, if we think this 15 
days is too short for our second public review then we have the right to 
extend the review. but we would have to balance that against the 
slippage to our overall schedule.

if the justification for extending the review is because of new document 
types then I think we need to look more deeply into what the impact of 
such a proposal really is. 

because UBL is based on a library of re-usable components, when we talk 
of new document types we really mean re-arranging existing components 
into a new structures.  for example the proposed Transportation Status 
document only adds 3 new ABIEs to the UBL library, 2 of which appear 
generic enough for other documents as well (extensions to the common 
library).  this is not the same situation as with EDI or other document 
standards not based on re-usable libraries.  in those environments i can 
understand why adding new document types is a major issue and requires 
considerable review.

another factor explaining the low impact of the proposed new document 
types is that they are actually part of existing business process 
already covered by UBL 2.0.  we are not proposing "Insurance Claim Form" 
or "Conveyence Transfer".  we are proposing documents that provide 
advisory information about either  the procurement (the Reminder) or 
transportation (the Transportation Status) processes.  we are filling in 
detail on existing use cases, not creating something new.

on this basis i cannot see how adding new document types is any more of 
a substantive change than  redesigning the levels of taxation, adding 
new qualified parties or the generalizing the way we do document 
referencing.  all of these are changes resulting from the first public 
review.

so the real question the TC should be asking is "When we look at the 
schemas for the second public review are they so different from the 
first public review schemas that 15 days is not adequate for public 
comments on the changes?"

and if we made it 21 days or 90 days would we get a different answer?

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath