Analysis Draft 8 was Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes NDRSC 8 October 2003

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

thanks for throwing yourself into the breech.  you sure know how to make 
yourself popular ;-)

i will make this analysis paper part of the LC/QA meeting on Friday OCt 
10th.  I suggest we all look at the paper and then be prepared to 
dispose of these items then.  So i suggest anyone wishing to comment 
participate in that call.


Lisa-Aeon wrote:

>I have included the LCSC on this email because, as we come down to the wire,
>may of the issues we discussed today impact the LCSC.  Please read through
>the minutes, and the attached AnalysisDraft8.xls.  The Anslysis document is
>probably the most important thing for the two groups to work through and
>agree upon.  The problems found, the issues mentioned, and the fixes, bring
>the two groups into better alignment.
>
>We all agree that we can not release without this alignment, so please read
>up.  Comments are welcome and wanted.  Reply to your own list (or both if
>you can) with your comments, I will try to monitor both lists  and cross
>post them for both groups to see.  Thank you everyone for the hard work you
>are all putting in.    We are getting closer!
>
>**************************************************************************
>
>Minutes for the NDRSC ConCall 8 October 2003
>
>Attended:  Lisa Seaburg (Chair), Mavis Cournane, Arofan Gregory, Jon Bosak,
>Paul Thorpe, Tony Coates, Stephen Green, Gunther Stuhec, Mark Crawford, Sue
>Probert, Eduardo Gutentag, Garrett Minakawa, Mike Grimley, Jim Wilson,
>
>B. Schedule Review:
>
>We are in week 3, this may be pushed back a week, by changes in LCSC.
>
> Week 3 (10/8)
>    1.  NDR Doc partial review by SC,
>    2.  Lisa doing Schema QA, halfway done.
>    3.  Rule changes to be reviewed and discussed.
>    4.  Mark says he will try to have another section to us by end of week,
>latest Tuesday.
> Week 2 (10/15) (Mavis to Chair) NDR Doc review by SC
>    1.  Finish the Schema QA, get issues and comments to the LCSC.  This
>discussion has to happen ASAP.
>    2.  Review NDR document installment from Mark
> Week 1 (10/22) (Mark to Chair) NDR Doc review by SC
> Week 0 (10/29) (Lisa to Chair) Release on Friday
>
>We have a lot of issues to discuss that could impact the schedule above, we
>will revisit schedule once decisions are made.
>
>C.  Schema QA and analysis:  LISA'S REPORT BELOW
>
>LS: I read through the rules and the  schema side by side doing a
>comparison.  Read the rule, then went to the schema to see how it was
>implemented.  These are my findings.
>
>See the Spreadsheet named:  AnalysisDraft8.xls which is attached to this
>email.
>
>Discussion Points on each Issue/Comment:
>
>1.  LS: I talked to Garret and Gunther and these are being worked on as we
>speak. We gave LCSC push back on this so now it should be under control.
>
>Also where is the "cat" CommonAggregateTypes schema module?
>LS: What is the CAT namespace?
>GS: WE have not decided any rules for this.
>MC: Where is the rule for that.
>GS: WE decided this verbally in Montreal.
>LS: It is already in the schema
>MC: What is it?
>GS: The reusable types are in this namespace.
>This comes from the library group.
>MC: What do I write in the Design Document. Are we creating a CAT module
>that contains all reusable aggregates.
>LS: Do we need a rule?
>AG: This came out of NDR in MASS.
>LS: Connect this  to rule SSM 5
>MC: There is supposed to be a namespace for each schema. But the modules all
>go in to a single namespace. These
>rules are pre--Montreal.
>I take that back. All schema modules must have its own namespace (NMS9) This
>is non-conformance on the part of library.
>LS: How will that effect Chee Kai's work?
>It will change all of the XPATH work etc?
>GS: I cannot speak for Chee Kai but it does not cause me any major problems.
>It won't change XPATH and forms. It depends
>on the namespace prefixes.
>EG: Why?
>GS: If you are using a different ns prefix for each document, and you use
>this document in another schema it can cause you
>problems. I can't tell about XSL forms.
>MC: I think we need a couple of more rules. It sounds like SSM5 needs to
>have MUST.
>We need a rule that says that a schema module defining all common leaf types
>must be created, a schema module defining
>all common aggregate types must be created, the common leaf types schema
>module must be named common leaf types schema module and
>ditto for common aggregate types.
>
>Things we need to vote on
>ISSUE 1. Motion We agree on the principle and leave it to Mark to do the
>wordsmithing.
>
>Principles:
>
>A schema module defining all common basic types must be created, it must be
>named common basic types schema module, the namespace will be "cbt".
>
>A schema module defining all common aggregate types must be created, it must
>be called  common aggregate types schema module, the namespace will be
>"cat".
>
>We will say that common is for type definitions that are reused across
>multiple schemas.
>
>The structure of our schemas are:
>
>All schema modules import the rt (rt imports the cct), dt, cbt, cat modules.
>
>GS: It is not necessary to import core component types. You are only
>importing the RTs. We decided that data types are not necessary for the
>first version of the library. We are only importing RT, CAB and ATs.
>
>To handle the implementation and fixing of the NDR rules:
>We maintain a log of known issues, the beta does not conform to these rules,
>the final release will fix this.
>
>MC: SSM3, is it technically incorrect.
>AG: Yes it is. It has to have exceptions for the CAT and common leaf types.
>EG: All we are saying is that modules have to be in the same ns as the
>schema itself.
>AG: The question is what is in that document.
>EG: You are importing them. You have a schema made up of 4-5 different
>modules, it belongs to that namespace.
>Apart from that you are importing other UBL constructs.
>MC: I guess the real issue is how we define "internal" in SSM3.
>AG: The idea is that common stuff is in its own ns
>We are allowing the possibility for a schema to break things in to other
>modules. We are just allowing for it but not doing it ourselves.,
>
>
>ISSUE 4.
>
>Every one of them with the exception of Dictionary Entry name does not apply
>to Element Decl. We should modify the rule to just have Type Definition.
>Should we create a new rule every element Decl must contain the annotation
>for its dictionary entry name.
>
>ISSUE 7.
>
>LS: My email "Missing Pieces". Gunther and I realized there was a rule 29a-i
>that was written and on Sept 10 in our Minutes  we had voted to accept with
>quorum and they were left off our list. It impacts the work LCSC is doing.
>It impacts the namespaces of the current code lists.
>
>GS: I suggest the LCSC have to change this to reflect our decisions. These
>namespaces should be defined using the information in the supplementary
>components.
>MC: With quorum we voted on these rules.
>SG: They were not in the checklist that went to LC.
>GS: I don't think it is so much work to implement this but I can't talk for
>Chee Kai.  IF we do not do this as we stated using the supplementary
>components, we are not in alignment with the CCTS TEch Spec.
>SP: We need to determine what has been implemented
>SG: I am not sure, perhaps they are carrying the supplementary component as
>an annotation.
>MC: IF that is the case then it is broken.
>Ls: Let's put this on hold and I will work this a bit with Gunther. Somebody
>needs to speak to Chee Kai.
>SG: He may have put it in the tool without putting it in the schema.
>LS: I will take an action to progress this with Gunther and liaise with Chee
>Kai if indeed Gunther determines that this is not CCTS compliant.
>
>
>ISSUE 5.  See spreadsheet.
>
>
>ISSUE 6.  See Spreadsheet.
>
>ISSUE 7.  Gunther has created files, they are sent to both groups, this has
>been discussed both at the LCSC teleconference this week and the NDRSC
>concall.
>
>
>ISSUE 8.  As a group we decided to use the sequence that LCSC has already
>implemented, so this needs to be changed in the NDR documentation.
>
>
>ISSUE 13.  Lisa discussed this with Gunther and Garrett, we vote to go ahead
>and change wording.  Mark to make change in NDR rules.
>
>
>D.  AOB
>Next Teleconference call is 15 October, 2003, Mavis Cournane to Chair.
>
>E.  Adjoun
>
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Lisa Seaburg
>AEON Consulting
>Website: http://www.aeon-llc.com
>Email:  lseaburg@aeon-llc.com
>Alternative Email: xcblgeek@yahoo.com
>Phone: 662-562-7676
>Cellphone: 662-501-7676
>
>"If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun."
>                       -Katharine Hepburn
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003
>  
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>

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