OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-lcsc message

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


Subject: Agenda for the next meeting of the UBL Library Content subcommitteeto be held on TUESDAY 22nd April between 8 and 10a.m California time




Please note that the next meeting of the UBL Library Content subcommittee will be held on TUESDAY 22nd April between 8 and 10a.m  California time 

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2003&mon=4&day=22&hour=15&min=0&sec=0

#############################################
STANDING INFORMATION FOR UBL CONFERENCE CALLS
U.S. domestic toll-free number: (866)839-8145
Int. access/caller paid number: (865)524-6352
Access code: 5705229
#############################################

NOTE: This is a new number to be used for all UBL calls.

The agenda will be:

1. Welcome from Chair and  appointment of Secretary to take minutes.
2. Acceptance of previous minutes (see attached).
 - open action items 

   20030318-03: Bill & Mike publish sample instance issues.
   20030318-06: Mike A. - draft of methodology paper.
   20030408-01: All - review Gunther's Common Core Components paper before F2F.
   20030415-01: Lisa sent copy of Gunther's CCC paper to lcsc list.
   20030415-02: Tim and Mike review BIEs to ensure we have the right metamodel
                (from discussion on comment # 3.1)
   20030415-03: Bill find name of person or group for Pankaj Patel to contact.
   20030415-04: Anne find out who we should contact for HL7 comments.
   20030415-05: Sue talk to Mike about suggestion for tools team (Jefeg?) to come to F2F.
   20030415-06: All - please respond to Jon's email on times to meet with OASIS re KAVI.

3. Work Plan for 1p00 release.
  - Analysis plans for face-to-face (Sue)
  - Modeling plans for face-to-face (Mike)
  - QA Team report (Marion)
         - 0p70 review comments to date http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/ubl-lcsc/download.php/1698/0p70_comments_20030414.xls
         - issues for discussion prior to face-to-face

4. CCTS Implementation Verification
	- Accept submission (see attached)

5. Proposed agenda for London Plenary
	- see attached

6. Other Business

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160

The UBL Library Content Subcommittee met by phone on Tuesday 15 April 2003.

Meeting Logistics:

    Time: 16:00 GMT
    Call number: 877.494.5165
    International number: 405.319.0674
    Participant code: 133929

Agenda:

1. Welcome from Chair and  appointment of Secretary to take minutes.

2. Acceptance of previous minutes; review open action items (from April 1st)

3. Work Plan for 1p00 release.
  - Analysis plans for face-to-face (Sue)
  - Modeling plans for face-to-face (Mike)
  - QA Team report (Marion)
        - 0p70 review comments to date (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/ubl-lcsc/download.php/1535/0p70_comments_20030411.xls)
        - close of comments period 
        - issues for discussion prior to face-to-face
	- digitial signature issue?
4. Reporrts from other SCs
	- Liaison
	- NDR
	- Context Methodology
	- Tools and Techniques
5. CCTS Implementation Verification
	- Action plan
6. Other Business
	- change of call details from next week
	- KIVA issues outstanding
	- capture action items outstanding


1. Welcome from Chair, roll call, appointment of Secretary to take minutes

   Meeting participants: ('Y' indicates attendance, '-' indicates absence)

        LCSC Members:

            Mike Adcock                         -                     
            Sally Chan                          -
            Arofan Gregory                      - 
            Stig Korsgaard                      - 
            Monica Martin                       Y
            Tim McGrath (Chair)                 Y 
            Bill Meadows                        -
            Sue Probert                         Y
            Deborah Quezadaz                    -
            Marion Royal (Vice Chair)           Y
            Terry Schager                       -
            Lisa Seaburg                        Y
            Ray Seddigh                         -
            Michael Seubert                     -
            Alan Stitzer                        - 
            Gunther Stuhec                      -
            Dagmar Wachtmann                    - 
            Nigel Wooden                        -
            Peter Yim                           -

        Guests/Observers:

            Jon Bosak                           Y
            Chin Chee-Kai                       Y
            Jay Gager                           Y
            Steven Green                        Y
            Anne Hendry                         Y

   Anne will take minutes.

2. Acceptance of previous minutes
   Open action items:

   20030318-03: Bill & Mike publish sample instance issues. - In progress.
                Mike is looking for working document that was used as basis
                of prior sample instances.
   20030318-06: Mike A. - draft of methodology paper. - In progress.
   20030401-01: QA Team identify issues prior to the f2f. - Done
   20030408-01: All - review Gunther's Common Core Components paper before F2F.
                Lisa will send updated doc to entire list.
   20030408-02: Mark send CCTS Implementation Verification information - Done.
   20030408-03: Marion start discussion for CCTS impl. verification process. - Done.
   20030408-04: Jon submit CCTS implementation verification form. - Done.

3. Work Plan for 1p00 release.

   a. Analysis plans for face-to-face (Sue)
      Sue has a Transportation meeting in middle of May which will generate
      feedback/requirements.  However, this puts the timing later in the ubl cycle.

   b. Modeling plans for face-to-face (Mike)
      Suggestion for Mike to read the paper from Context Methodology group.
      CM is defining how to apply context.
      Mike is defining what the extensions should be.
      Context drivers will then fall out of building the sample instances.

   c. QA Team report (Marion)
      0p70 review comments to date (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/ubl-lcsc/download.php/1535/0p70_comments_20030411.xls)

      Discussion of comments:

      3.1  Comment from Garrett Minakawa asking how UBL can jump from CCTs to BIEs.

           Tim: Yes, there is a step that is defined by CCTS that we have skipped
            definition of the CC.  So how can we define BIEs if we don't have a CC?
           This was discussed early in project  original plan was to take cc from ebxml,
           appy context and come up with BIE.  But there were no CC's, as such, defined.
           So we've taken what we see as being in a specific context (eg. Procurement)
           and call them BIEs.  If we were to decontextualize these BIEs we'd end up
           with a CC.  To answer the question in Garrett's comment: we will need to
           de-contectualize our BIE library to come up with the CCs.  Miek's assembly
           rules work and conttextualization work will contribute to this because it
           gives you a clue o how to reerse this process.  It will make harmonization
           more formal.
           Sue: discovery will be based on BIEs, because this is modeling and CC is
           what we look up when we have a library of them to see how our scenarios fit.
           If there is not one that fits, then a contirbuting organization can contribute
           any to fill their needs.  By 1.0 we will have a library of BIEs and then we
           can derive CCs from that for candidates to UN/CEFACT.  During the harmonization
           meetings in July will do what you've described across the candate BIEs to come
           up with CCs to osupport the BIE library.
           Mike's assembly rules work and contextualization work will contribute to this

           So, for 3.1, we can't actually have a position until there is a library.

           ISSUE for review: do we have right metamodel for BIE?  Tim and Mike to review.

      3.7  Comment from Garret Minakawa noting there is no schema definition for PartyType.
										
           Tim: this is a fair comment - we only have one paty identifier;
           could need multiple and should have same structure as order id.

      3.8  Comment from Garret Minakawa stating there is no way to create relationships
           between parties.

           Tim: Don't think we need this.

      4.1  Comment asking why there is no Purchase Order change (ChangeOrder)?
           Tim: we thought we'd be able to do this by cancelling existing order.
           Change orders are complex.  It's easier to cancel.  Makes document
           library simpler, but business process more complex.  Whoever wants
           to contribute more to this discussion can join in.

      5.n and 9.n
           These will require longer answers.

      9.2 - 9.3 name/address discussion

           We are facing a decision point of where we migrate away from
           ubl/edifact to a different way of representing address.  The
           whole issue of clearly differentiating between postal address
           and address and why they're different is the crux of this discussion.
           XCBL hisrorical reason is not enogugh now. 

      9.4  Comment asking why we don't simply implement CountryCode rather
           than CountryType and Code.

           Tim: this relates to Gunther's discussions (eg. coutrycode is
           often used - more of a data type component type than an ABIE.
           This rasises issue about modeling and how we implement the models
           in xsd.  Small reuable ABIEs almost constitute data types (or CCs).

           Tim: Garret's comment is trying to achieve some concesus across UBL/OAG.
           However, if we adopted model of OAG, we won't have the same schema.
           We can achieve conceptual alignement, but not implementation alignement.

      22.1 Commnents from Pankaj Patel at Convergys

           Tim: giving technical solutions to a business requiremnt.
           It is confusing things for him to talk about wsdl.
           What he's really talking about is what Sue discussed
           - extending ubl to a new domain - and gives some examples of that.
           This is a vertical extension excercise.
           Sue: suggestions that he join the group in TBG UN/CEFACT and come
           to coordinate ideas.  Also he may be interestein in Eduardo's CM
           paper for point 1.  This is relevant to us as a vertical extension.
           What work group would we point him to?  Can we come up with this
           before F2F?  Paul Levine?  AI: Bill find name of group to send him to.
           Sue can help if there's a TBG component.

           Jon: yes, there are other types of liaisons we can have (not only
           from industry groups, but, for instance, from other TCs such as
           the eGov TC).
           
      24.2 ...

      24.3 Comment asking why all aggregate BIEs have a mandatory identifier

           Tim: this came out of the modeling excercise and conforms to the
           position Gunther is taking on OO approach to schema design.  Tim
           is not tied to this as essential.
           Marion: The pupose was to differentiate ABIEs by combining common
           types - those required mandatory IDs, but not all.  Maybe this is
           now to differentiate?
           Tim; yes, we need a policy on this.

      f.8 Why does the spreadsheet has a captial 'I' whereas the schema
          has a capital 'I?

          Tim: There is an integrity issue between sparedsheets an schemas
          that needs addressing.  This could be due to last-minute editing
          of the ss and schema.  Kavi may preclude last-minute changes,
          so this is something we need to address for 0p70.

      f.9 Schema lists ReferencedDespatchAdvice where SS lists ReferencedDeliveryAdvice.

          Tim: I think there is a problem in schema generation.
          This is a typo in the 0p70 spreadsheet - forgot to rename top column.
          This should be editorial.

    Chee-Kai: will spreadhseet structure - orders/columns definitions - change
         in next release?
    Sue: only Mark's comments on whether we conform to CCTS may necessitate
         new columns.
    Tim: otherwise ss is reasonably stable (porbably have more than needed).
    Chee-Kai: the tool is now able to generate a spreadsheet.
    Tim: now we have something to compare against Perl script;
         we should be close to using all xml rather than a spreadsheet.
    Chee-Kai: the ss good for contextualizing
    Tim: could have ubl diagrams instead to drive this rather than ss.
         ss useful in some context, but difficul tin others

4. Reporrts from other SCs
	- Liaison
          No new liaison input this past month.
          All liaison input is in spreadsheet now.

	- NDR
          Mark's report is out iof date now.  An update is in progress.

	- Context Methodology
          Paper is being updated.

	- Tools and Techniques
          Mostly informal discussion - Gunther, Arofan, Chee-Kai.
          Making progress; hopefully by 1.0 will have alternative/comparative tools.
          Sue: tools team submitted comments; should they come to f2f?  (Jefeg)
          possibly lunch time presentation?  maybe then they could participate in ttsc.
          AI: Sue contact Mike to pass that suggestion on to them.

5. CCTS Implementation Verification
        There are several things being requested:
           - statement of scope
           - issues and comments
           - optional additional information (use cases, class diagrams, etc)
        UN/CEFACT is going through this for the first time ever with the CCTS spec.
        Tim can fill out and submit form.  Sue can answer questions and help
        where needed.  This was discussed in San Diego, so others at that meeting
        should be able to add their views.
        Plan:
            - Tim will get input from teams and pull together information
            - Tim will send out draft by end of the week; 5-day review cycle begins then
            - Send responses immediately so they can be collated at next Tuesday meeting

   Do not need a full software implementation, just what we have already done.

6. Other Business
	- change of call details from next week
          next week using new number.
	- KAVI issues outstanding
          Please respond to Jon's email on times to meet with OASIS
	- capture action items outstanding

   Next call last call before plenary.
   Looking for good turnout in London.

7. Adjourn: 18:05 GMT

Open/New Action Items

   20030318-03: Bill & Mike publish sample instance issues.
   20030318-06: Mike A. - draft of methodology paper.
   20030408-01: All - review Gunther's Common Core Components paper before F2F.
   20030415-01: Lisa sent copy of Gunther's CCC paper to lcsc list.
   20030415-02: Tim and Mike review BIEs to ensure we have the right metamodel
                (from discussion on comment # 3.1)
   20030415-03: Bill find name of person or group for Pankaj Patel to contact.
   20030415-04: Anne find out who we should contact for HL7 comments.
   20030415-05: Sue talk to Mike about suggestion for tools team (Jefeg?) to come to F2F.
   20030415-06: All - please respond to Jon's email on times to meet with OASIS re KAVI.

implementationverification.zip

JPEG image



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