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] | [List Home]


Subject: Revised outcomes of coordination call 12 December 2003


This revision of the notes published 2003.12.12 contains a
correction to item 2003-1212-05 (Achieving final CCTS alignment)
and an addition to 2003-1212-11 (UBL compliance). -- Jon

SUMMARY

   The 12 December coordination call was lightly attended due to
   the XML conference, but we made excellent progress nonetheless.

PRESENT

   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Anne Hendry
   Tim McGrath
   Sue Probert
   Marion Royal
   Lisa Seaburg
   Alan Stitzer

REGRETS

   Mavis Cournane
   Mark Crawford
   Eduardo Gutentag
   Ken Holman
   Bill Meadows

EXCUSED

   Noboruh Itoh
   Yukinori Saito
   Patrick Yee
   William Chan

ADMINISTRIVIA

   People have been slow to respond with the data I need to make a
   scheduling matrix for planning coordination calls, and some
   people who have responded have not given me the information
   that I was asking for.  I'm trying to set up a coordination
   schedule that will work for ALL THREE MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS,
   and to do this, I need to know CSC availability for THE ENTIRE
   24 HOUR CLOCK on all seven days of the week (yes, weekends
   included).  So I need to have, from each UBL chair / co-chair /
   vice chair and each editor, the following items of information:

    - Your time zone.

    - The times during the entire week (24 x 7) in your time zone
      when you generally CANNOT be available for coordination
      calls.  In addition to times when you are asleep or
      otherwise unavailable, this should include the specific
      times of any standing meetings that you cannot move or skip.
      If weekends are out for you, that's fine, but please say so.

    - The times during the entire week (24 x 7) in your time zone
      when you generally CAN be available for coordination calls.

   I will assume that the times not specified in either of the two
   categories above are times that you may or may not be
   available, depending on the circumstances.  You don't need to
   break this out for me separately.  Granularity is good; I need
   to be able to identify specific hours when people's schedules
   happen to line up on different days in different geographic
   regions.

   Please try to get this information to me ASAP.

==============================
ISSUES DEALT WITH THIS MEETING
==============================

2003-1212-01 Code list ownership clarification

   Issue

      Code list ownership (mechanism, population, identification)
      needs clarification.

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

      We think that this describes how it's going to work:

       - LCSC produces the code list catalogue that identifies
         which code lists need to be included in UBL and provides
         the enumerated values that will be used to populate the
         code lists.

       - CLSC develops the standard schema format for the code
         lists to be used in UBL according to schema naming and
         design rules specified by NDRSC.  We hope that this
         format will be adopted outside of UBL as well, but its
         basic requirement is to accommodate the code lists in the
         UBL code list catalogue and the values provided by LC.

       - CLSC also develops a methodology for the maintenance and
         user extension of code lists (example: standard / stock /
         placebo mechanism).

       - TTSC instantiates the code lists in the catalogue by
         generating schemas that incorporate the values provided
         by LCSC in the format defined by CLSC.

   Assignments (2003.12.12)

      Ken Holman, Mavis Cournane, and Sue Probert are assigned the
      task of further clarifying the outcomes of 2003.12.12 above
      and submitting the result to the CSC.

   Carried forward (2003.12.12)

      We need to reach out to external code list agencies to work
      with us; could this be a job for the Liaison SC?  [Probably
      not; the MoU/MG might be better.  We need to consider this
      further.]

2003-1212-02 Schema compliance to NDRs

   Issue

      We need an owner for "review of schemas to ensure they
      conform to NDR rules."

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

      The responsibility for reviewing the schemas for NDR
      compliance clearly belongs to NDR.  The key questions are:

         1. Who in the NDRSC is actually responsible for doing
            this?

         2. How far are they empowered to make judgements on their
            own?  To put it another way: how and when do they
            escalate resolution on particular points to a larger
            group?

   Assignments (2003.12.12)

       - NDRSC to identify and empower someone willing and able to
         perform the NDR compliance function (or report that we
         have a resource problem).

       - NDRSC to specify an escalation plan for rule
         interpretation and conflict resolution.

2003-1212-03 Schema validation

   Issue

      We need a clear assignment of responsibility for validating
      schemas and example instances using various XSD validators
      every time the schemas are modified.  (This issue was not on
      the agenda for this call; it fell out of the discussion of
      2003-1212-02.)

   Assignment (2003.12.12)

      TTSC to decide which validators shall be considered
      authoritative (there should be several) and to fix the
      responsibility for (1) running validation checks using these
      validators after each build and (2) reporting to the TC that
      the build has successfully passed all the checks.

2003-1212-04 RosettaNet NDR input

   Issue

      We have in hand a set of suggested revisions to the UBL NDRs
      submitted by RosettaNet in early September:

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-lsc/200309/msg00002.html

      We also have the latest RosettaNet NDRs:

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200312/msg00010.html

      We need to figure out how we are going to handle these inputs.

   Status

      See

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200312/msg00002.html

      The basic problem here is that the comments were received
      several months too late to be considered in the discussions
      of NDRs for UBL 1.0.  Now the question is: what (if
      anything) can be done to promote convergence at this late
      date?

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

      The coordination call didn't come to any conclusion about
      this, so we'll need to carry it forward.  Here is what I
      think we need to know in order to arrive at some kind of
      decision:

         For each area of difference identified in the September
         document from RosettaNet:

          - Does this still apply to the final NDRs?

          - If so, do we agree with the suggested change in
            principle?

          - If we do, what would be the practical impact of
            changing UBL NDRs to align with the RosettaNet
            suggestion in UBL 1.0 FCS?

      Without this analysis, I don't think we can do anything but
      say "Sorry, too late."

   Assignment

      We didn't get this far in the call, but I think the implicit
      assignment is to NDRSC to tell us whether there are the
      resources available to perform the gap analysis outlined
      above.

2003-1212-05 Achieving final CCTS alignment

   Issue

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

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

    - The burden of CCTS compliance lies entirely with LCSC.  This
      is not a coordination issue.

    - 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.

    - TTSC had some concerns that CCTS was a moving target.  It
      seems that this is not true; CCTS 2.01 appears to be quite
      stable.

    - TTSC also has some concerns about possible ambiguities and
      areas of the CCTS that may need interpretation.  We
      identified Sue Probert as our liaison in these cases.

2003-1212-06 Submission of UBL semantics to TBG17

   Issues

    - Managing relationship/coordination

    - Formal contribution of our semantics

   Status

      TBG17 has received eight or nine submissions, all featuring
      different implementations of the CCTS rules.  A TBG17 group
      is now working to produce a set of rules for submission
      formats.  When those are released, UBL will be in catch-up
      mode along with the other submitters.

   Outcomes

    - We are waiting on TBG17 for submission guidelines.

    - We should expect the input we need to make a submission in
      January.  The worst case will be if the guidelines are not
      finished until after the TBG17 meeting 9 February.  But if
      the guidelines are published in January as expected, we will
      have a submission deadline of 2 February.

    - Sue Probert bears responsibility for keeping us informed.
      UBL is covered for right now.

    - LCSC is responsible for making the submission, so this is
      not a coordination issue.

    - But liaison with TBG17 is a coordination issue.  We need to
      appoint a liaison from UBL to TBG17.  Marion Royal is
      willing to serve in this capacity.

   Assignments

    - Jon Bosak to contact Stig Korsgaard to ask him how we go
      about appointing Marion our liaison to TBG17.

=====================================
ISSUES NOT DEALT WITH AT THIS MEETING
=============================----====

2003-1212-07 Schema generation

   Issue

      I think this refers to the whole question of who's
      responsible for what going into the next build cycle.  But I
      could be wrong; it's Tim's item.

2003-1212-08 NDR document

   Issues

    - Publication/feedback schedule

    - Effect of changes on Beta -> FCS

2003-1212-09 Beta/FCS diff tracking

   Issue

      How to maintain and communicate thoroughly detailed diffs of
      changes between Beta and FCS for input to the UBL
      localization SCs and early implementers

2003-1212-10 Populating the OASIS Registry with UBL artifacts

   Issues

     - What is needed 

     - Who can do it

     - Deadline 15 January

   Background

      See the thread beginning at

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-csc/200312/msg00028.html

================================
NEW ISSUES ADDED AT THIS MEETING
================================

2003-1212-11 UBL compliance

   Issue

      What does it mean to be "UBL compliant"?

   Status

      TTSC (which must answer this question for practical reasons)
      is beginning to analyze the issue and is in the process of
      producing some use cases for further discussion.  I have
      forwarded their latest thinking on this in separate mail to
      the TC list.  But the question cuts across CMSC, LCSC, CLSC,
      and NDRSC, and therefore its resolution is a coordination
      issue.

   Background

      See the TTSC preliminary analysis of use cases:

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200312/msg00036.html

      And the 1.0 Beta "Guidelines For The Customization of UBL
      Schemas":

         http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/lcsc/UBLv1-beta/cm/wd-cmsc-cmguidelines-1.0-beta.html

      A paper written by the late Michael Adcock is also felt to
      be relevant to this discussion:

         http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/ubl-lcsc/download.php/4364/Context_NewPaper.doc



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