RE: [ubl-csc] Outcomes of coordination call 12 December 2003

["Sue Probert" <sue.probert@dial.pipex.com>]

Hi Jon

Many thanks for such comprehensive notes of yesterday's meeting. I do have one comment and that is that I do not remember the following statement being made ...

2003-1212-05 Achieving final CCTS alignment

   Issue

      I thought that there were issues to be dealt with here.

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

 .....
    - We don't need CCTS datatypes, so this is not currently even
      an LCSC issue.  If it becomes one, our NDRs already cover
      how to deal with it.
 .....

I cannot agree that this is a permanent decision although I recognise that this is an LCSC issue for me to pursue. LCSC agreed in SFO to take this position for beta but that it would be reviewed as part of the CCTS alignment task. My suggestion would be to change the text as follows:

    -The beta version does not use any UBL defined CCTS datatypes, so this is not yet even
      an LCSC issue. However, this has been identified as a key area for CCTS alignment and
      in SFO LCSC agreed to review this issue. It is hoped that whatever the outcome, our 
      NDRs already cover how to deal with it.

regards

Sue