[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