Minutes of UBL TC meeting 16 August 2006

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

UBL TC MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY 16 AUGUST 2006

Members attending the Montréal meeting in person:

   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Mikkel Brun
   Mavis Cournane
   Mike Grimley
   G. Ken Holman
   Andy Schoka
   Paul Thorpe

Observer attending in person:

   Christian Lanng

Members attending by phone:

   Tim McGrath (vice chair)
   Peter Borresen

Issue review

   As in Tuesday's meeting, TM recorded all the dispositions in
   the issues spreadsheet, flagging the ones that are candidates
   for revision if we do another public review.

   AGREED to put the instance rules (former IND1-IND7) in a new
   Section 7 of the UBL spec.

   ACTION: NDR editors to create a first draft for this section.

   ACTION: TM to pass on PSC/TSC issues for ratification by them
   next week.

   TM: Note that we may need to convene a special TC meeting
   toward the end of next week to finally resolve these things.

   JB: Issues possibly requiring an unavoidable substantive change
   to the spec: 11 and 15.

   TM: Plus many others that could be included in another public
   review if we're forced to have one.

   JB: How critical would another month's delay be to our user
   community?  Note that we will have a CS earlier than an OASIS
   Standard.

   PB: Will check on this.

   MG/MC: There are too many small issues outstanding to feel
   comfortable with approving the spec in its present form.  We
   won't vote no but will strongly object to its release.

UN/CEFACT status

   TM referred to his report posted at

      http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200608/msg00047.html

   Key points of the discussion:

    - Recent mail on the UBL TC list raises questions about the
      objective of collaboration.  Is it convergence or
      assimilation?  We understand it to mean convergence, that
      is, the creation of a common solution incorporating the best
      technical thinking, regardless of positions previously taken
      in each organization and its impact on each organization's
      current technical direction.

    - Invitations such as the one recently received from ATG2 are
      welcome.  Unfortunately, we were given too little notice for
      our members to attend face-to-face.  It was noted that
      engagement needs to be recognized as one of the tasks
      identified in the "Summary of the agreed current activities
      and next steps" agreed with CEFACT management. We should
      take this opportunity to establish a clear plan for
      convergence with ATG2 on a single set of NDRs.

   Conclusion: To enable UBL to commit adequate resources to this
   effort, we would like develop a formal statement of intention
   to back up the collaboration agreement and project plans. The
   principles of this should be along the lines of:

    - The discussions are to be open to all ideas from both
      parties.

    - The objective is to develop the best possible common
      solution without regard for the positions previously taken
      in either community.

   ACTION: TM to discuss these issues with Mark Palmer.

   AGREED that TM will represent UBL in moving forward with the
   UN/CEFACT relationship.

   ACTION: UBL TC chairs and UBL NDR editors to create a response
   to the ATG2 invitation following determination of our 2007
   meeting schedule.

UBL adoption in Denmark

   We took advantage of their presence at the meeting to ask MB
   and CL about their presentation earlier this week in the B2B
   eCommerce track of the ICEC '06 conference in Fredericton.
   They will also be presenting at the December XML 2006
   conference in Boston.  Two interesting tidbits:

    - After one year of implementation, UBL penetration in Denmark
      equals the level it took EDI 18 years to achieve

    - The Danish government intends to use UBL as the basis for a
      national B2B program that is projected to save businesses in
      Denmark 550 to 700 million euros annually when fully
      implemented

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC