[ubl-csc] 26 August CSC Call

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

Title: 26 August CSC Call

Agenda for 26 August 2002 UBL CSC meeting
The UBL CSC will meet by phone on Monday, 26 August 2002, at 8:00am California time - (11:00am-12:00pm Eastern Daylight Time)

<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2002&mon=07&day=17&hour=15&min=30&sec=0>
Please use the following dial-in information:
Caller paid: +1 334 832 4208
Toll free: +1 888 422 7141
Participant code: 242-630
CSC agenda:
1. Roll call
2. Adoption of agenda/schedule planning

August 26
September 23
October 1-4:
- F2F #5 in Burlington, MA, USA
3. Brief reports from SCs
Jon - Liaison, Marketing, Administration
Eve - NDR
Tim - LCSC
Matt - Context
Arofan - Tools
Sue - Context Drivers
4. - Coordination (Carry forward)
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.
Eve has submitted the following for consideration under this general heading -
- 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?

5. - Perception of UBL
Despite our marketing and outreach efforts, we are still being perceived by many as a Purchase Order standardization effort. What can we do to break this mold?

6. . 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)
- 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)
Other Issues
7. Scope/Dimensions
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
8. Adjourn

Mark