OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-csc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: RE: [ubl-csc] CSC meeting on Monday, August 26?


Hi Mark

I'd like to suggest one addition to Eve's excellent list re CCTS updates. I
think we need to discuss some possible additions/adjustments of our naming
rules to cater for the changes (reductions) in the CCTS RT table.

Another point that I think the csc could discuss is how (method and
expression methodology) we should define the scope/dimensions of our
standard UBL 80/20 document structures so that it is clear to UBL users
where their particular requirements for context extensions kick in. Examples
of possible scope statements for the UBL Order might be:

a) No substitute products
b) One delivery point per order
c) Supports cross-border trading
etc. etc.

cheers

Sue

Sue Probert
Senior Director, Document Standards
Commerce One
Tel: +44 17534 830000
email: sue.probert@commerceone.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com]
Sent: 21 August 2002 18:32
To: ubl-csc
Subject: Re: [ubl-csc] CSC meeting on Monday, August 26?


Here are a couple of items:

- Containership and the UBL Library distribution

   There are several position papers out now that touch on this subject:
   Arofan's containership paper, Gunther et al.'s paper on OO design,
   and Tim's paper (upcoming?) on normalization.  There has been a
   concern expressed in the NDR meetings that the upcoming LC SC
   distribution has a stance on containership that doesn't reflect
   the discussion on this point at the last F2F (centering on Arofan's
   paper) and presents only one viewpoint.  Obviously this is a big,
   important topic that should be discussed at the next F2F (see below),
   but the particular concern expressed was that the issue is being
   presented to reviewers in a one-sided fashion.  How can we ensure
   that reviewers see the pros and cons of different containership
   choices and have a chance to consider them?

- Agenda planning for the next F2F

   We need to get containership on the agenda for joint sessions in
   Burlington.  In fact, we need to ensure that the issue gets resolved
   100% at that meeting, because the issue is important (and perhaps
   contentious?) enough to keep the UBL effort from progressing until
   it's decided.

   Other topics I'd like to propose for joint and/or whole-TC sessions:

   - An overview of the latest CCTS work
   - Second-tier attributes (impacted by CCTS work)
   - Date/time (impacted by CCTS work)
   - Content referencing (impacted by CCTS work)

	Eve

CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
> We do have a meeting scheduled.  Will all members please identify any 
> issues that need to be added to the agenda (currently devoid of topics)
> 
> Mark

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 883 5917
XML Web Services / Industry Initiatives      eve.maler @ sun.com


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC