[ubl-csc] Minutes from 22 July Meeting

["CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Title: Minutes from 22 July Meeting

Minutes for 22 July 2002 UBL CSC meeting
 
The UBL CSC met by phone on Monday, 22 July 2002, from 11:00am-12:00pm Eastern Daylight Time

1. Roll call 

Jon Bosak               no
Mark Crawford   yes
Matt Gertner            no
Arofan Gregory  yes
Eve Mailer              yes
Tim McGrath             yes
Sue Probert             yes

2. Adoption of agenda/schedule planning

    August 5 - Chaired by Jon
    August 26 -
    September 23 -
    October 1-4
    - F2F #5 in Burlington, MA, USA
 
3. Brief reports from SCs
 
        Jon - Liaison, Marketing, Administration

deferred.

a. Eve Mailer - NDR

Nested supplementary components - supplementary components on a CCT that has others on it.  Arofan feels this is much smaller problem as there is only one CCT that has a nesting problem.




b. Tim McGrath - LCSC

Expressed concern regarding next version of CC specification and questions regarding feedback procedure. Main focus is to consolidate the library content, the model of the LC, and the method we use.  We will develop a far more comprehensive release package for next version.  Will focus more on library of BIE's that document structure.  Should explain role much better.  Schedule is to try and get out by 4^th of August, but believe that 16 August is more realistic.

c. Matt Gertner - Context

deferred.

e. Arofan Gregory - Tools

CCSD is using Gunter's script for syntax bindings.  They are using same spreadsheet and model as UBL.  Gunter has a lot of deliverables for LC, and is working with Mavis on some of them.  Arofan will talk with Gunter.  Sue thinks we may want to talk to Accord about helping out with tools.  Need to pull together and evaluate candidate tools. Arofan to put together meeting and lay out approach.


f. Sue Probert - Context Drivers

Working to expand participation.  Jon has raised some issues on procedures, so need to resolve before we begin efforts.

 
4. - Coordination

Issue:

What's the best way to achieve coordination among subcommittees,
particularly LC and NDR?  One idea floated so far is a "SWAT team" of
people who are in both, meeting every 2+ weeks.  Another idea is to use
the CSC forum itself for issues.

Discussion:

How do we get more coordination without putting too much of a burden on anyone?  UBL can benefit by joint effort, or everyone looking at products.  Is CSC the right forum?  May not be given the schedule.  Arofan thinks that it is the right forum to identify the issue, but that actual resolution could be handled elsewhere.  Tim is somewhat reluctant on the SWAT team issue given bandwidth considerations.  Would rather see specific issues raised in CSC with resolution elsewhere by ad hoc effort.  CSC would also handle such issues as release date, comment process, and the like.  Arofan thinks this group is also the right group to talk about establishing a quality review team that would ensure that release packages were in conformance with the products of the other groups.  Tim likes that vision of a QR team.  Eve thinks that in practice, where the rubber meets the road, is columns in spreadsheets and code in XML.  We need to ensure that there is coordination between those two focus areas.  For example code lists.  As NDR makes decisions on how to use Code Lists, the columns in the spreadsheets need to enable that approach.  We need to make sure we don't only focus on theoretical, we need to have practical solutions to specific issues.  Tim thinks we are working three areas - columns, schemas, and what populates those columns, and what the actual entries are.  The filling out role is something that UBL will let go.  Arofan believes that we also have continuity with Core Components.

In practical terms it sounds like we have a notion of SWAT teams forming on each issue.  May be editorial teams for large deliverables, or may be others such as the author of a position paper. Technical things that a team takes on, perhaps a person from the other team can be assigned to conduct a review as the product is in process. 

Decision:

As CSC is in agreement, this will become formal UBL practice -  Chairs will raise Issues that require coordination to CSC, CSC will identify actions/timeframes/processes required, appropriate Chair will assume responsibility for identifying responsible individual to CSC/requesting Chair. 

5 - Deliverable(s)

Issue:

-       It's been suggested that UBL ultimately produce a single document
containing all the recommendations, methodology, documentation, etc.  Is
this feasible? appropriate?  Would the process of making this happen
actually help with the coordination item above?

Discussion:

Much discussion regarding the need for coordination of deliverables.  General consensus that coordination of deliverables is imperative after next F2F.  Each subcommittee has different needs out of review cycles, so each team can have different approaches to F2F.   We need to have a more coordinated end-game that all teams are working towards.   Tim thinks that the LC releases should at a minimum identify what version of the NDR the LC release is in conformance with.  Teams should identify status of deliverables and schedules of releases in the CSC. NDR call should review prioritization with eye towards completing NDR spec and associated position papers that we can point LC to so that next LC release can point to specific NDR version and related papers.

6 - Date/Time Paper

Issue:

-       Perhaps this is just a specific example of coordination/documentation
issues, but the Date/Time paper is being worked on by people who
represent both big SCs.  For expediency, I had suggested that the
comments coming in should be disposed of using the NDR issue resolution
mechanism, but they could just as easily be done in LC.  What to do?

Discussion:

Gunter is responsible for coordinating with Mike Adcock of LC on comments and then reporting back to NDR with issues.  LC needs resolution on this issue by 1^st week of August.

7. Other Issues

a. synchronizing of releases. See discussion on 5 above.

9. Adjourn at y:04.

 
Mark
Mark Crawford
Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
______
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7518
Wireless (703) 655-4810
mcrawford@lmi.org
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"