Re: [ubl-csc] UBL CSC agenda Monday 5 August 2002

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

my aplogies but i am unwell (flu) and wont be able to stay up for the 
meeting tonight.

i had hoped for a recovery this afternoon, but it didn't happen.

Jon can you give a summary of what i said at the LSC meeting as my report?

In terms of the discussion, i hope that we can make significant steps 
toward pulling together LC and NDR documents for the 16th.


Jon Bosak wrote:

>I would like to add to Eve's CSC agenda list the idea of joint
>committees.  I have an action item to address this and could use a
>little structural input from the chairs.  So here's our agenda,
>assuming that Eve can join us (if not, we will adjust as
>necessary).
>
>Jon
>
>==================================================================
>
>OASIS UBL CSC MEETING MONDAY 5 AUGUST 2002
>
>Please use this dial-in information:
>
>   Toll free: +1 866 680 0148
>   Caller paid: +1 646 441 1003
>   Participant code: 701188
>
>Sitting in for Mark Crawford as chair pro tem: Jon Bosak
>
>Agenda:
>
>   1. Brief reports from SCs
>
>      Jon - Liaison, Marketing, Administration
>      Eve - NDR
>      Tim - LCSC
>      Matt - Context
>      Arofan - Tools
>      Sue - Context Drivers
>
>   2. Review of joint NDR/LC action on several items, listed by
>      Eve Maler as follows:
>
>      - LC methodology paper
>
>         (The NDR group may appoint an "NDR-side reviewer" of this
>         in today's meeting)
>
>      - Date/time paper
>
>         (It seems sufficient to have Gunther and Mike on this
>         together, as they already are)
>
>      - Facets
>
>         (Lisa is probably already a good point person for this,
>         being on both groups and being the spreadsheet owner, but
>         maybe this needs another pair of NDR eyes?)
>
>      - Code lists
>
>         (This issue probably needs an NDR-side reviewer of the LC
>         outputs)
>
>      - 0pt65 in general
>
>         (Lisa is doing a QA in general on this now, but it would
>         be great to get an explicit "rules adherence review" --
>         Gunther and Mavis, maybe?  They may take this on at
>         today's NDR meeting)
>
>   3. JC formation
>
>   4. NDR synchronization with the review cycle
>
>      I've retrieved a note of mine dated 14 June regarding an
>      agenda for the first CSC (which in the event I was not able
>      to attend).  Some of this is still relevant and some is not;
>      I'm copying it here because it contains some input from the
>      LSC that never got submitted to you.  The note reads as
>      follows:
>
>      /==================================================================
>      | 
>      | 1. Review synchronization and the role of NDR
>      | 
>      |    From LSC minutes 14 June 2002:
>      | 
>      |    We discussed the fact that we already have Rev 2 of NDR but
>      |    will not have Rev 2 of the Library for a while yet.  Is this a
>      |    problem?  Points made during the discussion:
>      | 
>      |     - It's more important to keep NDR flowing into LC than keeping
>      |       external reviews in sync
>      | 
>      |     - The priority is to make sure that the next LC release
>      |       incorporates the latest NDR guidelines
>      | 
>      |     - Most of the groups represented in the LSC do not have a
>      |       subcommittee that maps directly to NDR (X12 being the
>      |       notable exception, but we don't have information on IXRetail
>      |       or RosettaNet)
>      | 
>      |     - We think it's possible that we can get a response to a
>      |       general call for comments on NDR from EIDX and EDIFACT; so
>      |       probably the best thing would be a general announcement in
>      |       each of the groups with a request to send comments to the
>      |       NDR SC
>      | 
>      |     - We need to be clearer with external reviewers about the
>      |       relationship between the two packages
>      | 
>      |     - We need to state clearly to external reviewers what they
>      |       will gain from NDR and why they should be paying attention
>      |       to it; this depends on what stage they are at in their own
>      |       XML design work and the extent to which they intend to use
>      |       the UBL library
>      | 
>      |     - We've been assuming that use of the UBL NDR will help
>      |       promote future convergence with UBL; we need to know whether
>      |       this is actually true
>      | 
>      |     - Some parts of NDR will be more relevant to liaison groups
>      |       than other parts; we need the NDR SC to identify these
>      | 
>      \==================================================================
>
>Jon
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>.
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142