[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-csc] Review packaging
See below for notes from a call held this morning to discuss
packaging of the upcoming UBL review. I'm sending this to the UBL
chairs list and several other people who need to be in on this so
that we all know what's happening.
For those who don't already know this: Anne Hendry's services have
been contributed to help project-manage the review cycle; hence
the suddenly far more organized approach than you're used to
getting from me. I don't know whether Anne will be available to
help us after this review cycle, but I'm very grateful for
whatever professional project management we can get.
I see from Anne's notes below that the packaging team has decided
to use the Part 2 (i.e., Library Content) "virtual document" as
the hub document for this review. I'm glad now that I didn't
catch up with the notice of this meeting in time to attend,
because I probably would have resisted this on the grounds that
we're losing the parallelism between "Part 1" (i.e., NDR) and
"Part 2" (i.e., Library Content). After looking at the current
NDR document and its associated position papers, however, I
realize now just how radically the OASIS template used for the NDR
document differs from the pseudo-ISO organization of the "Part 2"
template and how difficult it would be at this stage of the game
to change it. From a practical point of view, pointing out to the
NDR document and its associated position papers from the same
hypertext framework used for all the other disparate pieces of
this release appears to be the only sensible thing to do. Then I
and the few people who are concerned about how this all gets
ultimately produced as a set of international standards can chip
away at the problem during the three months that the rest of the
world is considering the technical aspects.
The only thing I would suggest at this point is that we change the
name of the review package from "Part 2" to something like "UBL
Public Review: 13 January 2003" (with a change to "20 January
2003") in the version that gets publicly announced on that date).
Then "Part 1" and "Part 2" could be subsections within the HTML
doc at one level further down. In other words, all the H2s in the
current "Part 2" template become H3s and so on. Under "Part 2" we
would have everything just as it's been organized for the last
couple of weeks (only with all the headers pushed down one level),
and under "Part 1" the NDR document and the technical papers could
be called out in exactly the way the the subsidiary pieces of Part
2 are called out. So Part 1 would look something like this:
Universal Business Language -- Part 1: Naming and Design Rules
Intro
[a short para, TBD; include status of the drafts]
1 Scope
[a short para, TBD]
2 Normative References
[probably just a copy of the same section in Part 2]
3 Naming and Design Rules
[nominal intro sentence + pointer to the current draft]
Annex A Code Lists (Informative)
[nominal intro sentence + pointer to the current draft]
Annex B Containership, Modeling, and Component Reuse (Informative)
[nominal intro sentence + pointer to the current draft]
Annex C Date and Time Representation (Informative)
[nominal intro sentence + pointer to the current draft]
I'm not at all wedded to this suggestion, but I have a hunch from
Anne's notes that this is roughly the direction the packaging team
will be headed anyway. The only thing I feel strongly about is
that if we make the review package a single hypertext document
(which I believe is the sensible thing to do), we should not call
it "Part 2"; that would really confuse people.
Jon
==================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:48:07 -0800
From: Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com>
To: tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au, bill.meadows@sun.com, lseaburg@aeon-llc.com
CC: anne.hendry@sun.com, jon.bosak@sun.com
Subject: notes from UBL packaging/review process meeting
Hi,
Below are the notes from this morning's meeting,
as best as I could capture them. If there's anything
that needs changing/adding/deleting, please reply
with update.
One thing I didn't catch was whether there was a
decision to have the QA team be the editing team,
or a subset of that team. Just noted that Bill
would be the point person.
Thanks,
Anne
==================================================================
Meeting: UBL packaging/review process
Date: 10 January 2003
Present:
Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com>
Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
Bill Meadows <bill.meadows@sun.com>
Lisa Seaburg <lseaburg@aeon-llc.com>
Purpose:
The purpose of the meeting is to make sure we have communicated
and have agreement on what will be included in the review package,
how it will be distributed, and how we will handle the feedback.
Action Items:
20030110-01 Tim send images that go with Part II html template.
20030110-02 Lisa send scope statement to Tim (Chapter 5).
20020110-03 Lisa get any XSD review feedback from QA to Tim.
20020110-04 Lisa check with QA about creating sample test data.
20020110-05 Tim will send entire final package to Bill for web site
(before end of day Monday, Perth time)
20020110-06 Bill do the web download pages and post package.
Discussion:
I. Stream One - critical path
Everything will be referenced from the umbrella LC document
[UBL Part II], including Part I (NDR).
By Monday need to create the documents that are referenced by
this document.
NDR document(s):
Will be in place (see 'package location' below) for
Monday. Mark is taking over editing, so this Monday's
version will be an earlier version, which will be
updated by 20th with his most recent changes (mainly
editorial updates). No problem with ailgnment with LC
- as LC evolves it becomes more aligned with NDR.
Over next 2-3 months NDR will not break 0.70 rules.
Scope statement:
Need reviewed scope statement from QA (this becomes
Chapter 5 "UBL Context and Business Rules"). Tim will
send images that are missing from the html and Lisa
will dicsuss with QA.
XSD documents - Gunther (and Lisa for NDR QA):
Tim spoke to Gunther Stubec about the XSDs. They
needed a bit of updating. NDR has not looked at what
Gunther sent yesteray. Gunther will be sending
another update today, but nothing has changed from
yesterday that requires NDR review, so ok to base
review on yesterday's release. NDR is looking mainly
at the naming conventions, so shouldn't be an issue if
just minor changes. Lisa will get QA feedback.
UML for documents - Dave Carlson [needs XSDs]
Stylesheets - Ken Holman [needs XSDs and samples]
II. Stream Two - documentation
a. Part 2 Document - Tim [for QA & Jon B. edits]
Tim has sent out the html template which will form UBL
Part II, the umbrella document for this release.
Everything will be referenced from this document: Part
I (NDR), spreadsheet, diagrams, schemas, etc.
b. UML for normalized model - Bill Burcham
Tim has these, but they are in SVG format. Need to
get them in a more generally viewable format (pdf?).
Tim will request this.
c. Normalized spreadsheet - Mike [only minor edit required]
d. Document spreadsheets - Mike [DONE]
e. Scope statement (discussed above)
f. Sample docs
Had sample docs with test data for previous release.
Can we do this again? Not sure who did sample (test)
data for last release. Basically need to take previous
(release 0.65) sample data and map to new schemas.
Could be done using XMLSpy. Lisa can check with QA
to see if anyone in that team can do it.
III. Other
a. package naming
As noted above, everything will be referenced from the
LC document, UBL Part II, including Part I (NDR).
Version will be 0.70 (not 1.0). 1.0 will happen as a
result of the formal standardization process once this
is formally submitted.
b. package location on web site
Package will be on LCSC web page for the 13th, then move
everything to top level web page for 20th along with Jon's
comments. Tim will send package to Bill before midnight,
Monday the 13th, Perth time. Hopefully will be earlier,
but it depends on when others get their pieces to him.
NDR pieces will be in NDR directory. They are not in final
template form yet, so will be referenced from Part II.
NDR team (Mavis?) will put them in a directory with a
generic name (something that does not refer to the release
version) so they can be referenced from within Part II yet
updated w/o needing to change the document link.
c. process and owners for receiving, collating, editing, etc,
review input
Last time there was an editing team that took the comments
collated/categorized them, etc, with a single point of
contact (Lisa). Worked well last time. Bill will be point
of contact this time and will also monitor the comment list.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC