Request for Agenda Items and Minutes UBL CLSC January 21 2004

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

Dear all
this is a request for agenda items for next week's call. Below are the
minutes from today's meeting.

Regards
Mavis

----------------
0: Welcome by the chair Mavis Cournane and Roll Call

Anne Hendry
Alan Stitzer
Marty Burns
Mavis Cournane
Paul Spencer

Regrets
Ken Holman
Sue Probert
Tony Coates




1.  (a)Review requirement inputs to section 2.3 by Ken
(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-clsc/email/archives/200401
/msg00022.html)

Rule 18 - Proposed amendment by Mavis:

The code list owner must indicate for each given code list whether this code
list may be extended.



R17

Anne Hendry: There are times when a URI will resolve to a document that
contains a list. That URI does not change right but the underlying list
does.
Marty: The URI has to change if the code list changes as that is only basis
for validation. Section 3 and 4 are draft only.
I am not sure if we explicitly have a requirement for versioning.
The way to do that is to make sure that it mentions this issue.
For R17 add a paragraph.- Anne Hendry to provide.




R32 - Paul Spencer: is that in the context of a complete list or individual
codes?

Paul Spencer: there is a good argument for saying you should reissue a
complete new list.
Action: Paul will post a document to the list that he has already written on
this.
Marty: Let's say you were going to make a 2004 valid code list, valid for
that period only even if it does not change in 2005.


     (b)Review requirement inputs by Alan Stitzer
(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-clsc/email/archives/200401
/msg00016.html)


2. Do we need to make a distinction between CCTS code lists and enumerated
lists?
(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-clsc/email/archives/200401
/msg00024.html)

Deferred. There was a general discussion about how code list owners need to
identify whether their code lists can be extended.
See proposed amendment to R18.

3 Review of scheduling requirements.

In terms of Tim's schedule, we will need something by next week.
Mavis will ask Tony to review and validate section 3 of the document so that
we can forge ahead.
In the short term Marty could possibly liaise with Michael Dill to explain
section 4 of the document.
4. AOB

Mavis Cournane: The abstract data model will be in a machine readable form
and we presume this will be in XML format. XSL would probably be  used to
generate the schema.  Is this something we generally agree?

For generating the final schemas Michael Dill will need to be aware of what
he is pulling from for the code lists. In LCSC they
have spreadsheets after the NDR rules were applied. We need to provide
Michael with some help.

The best thing is if we can direct him to Section 4 right now. Michael and
Sue are in DC right now in proximity to Marty.
Mavis will mail Sue and ask her to share the latest Secton 4 with Michael.
Marty would be available to meet with him
and answer possible questions.

Anne Hendry: What about the code list catalogue and how does the XML
representation relate to this.
deferred.

5. Action items:
1. Everybody review Mavis's proposed amendment to R18
2. Anne to provide amendment to R17
3. Tony Coates to validate section 3.
4. Mavis to liaise with Sue about getting Michael Dill help with Section 4
from Marty.
5. Marty to talk to Mark Palmer about TC 184 and input for the code list
catalog.