[ubl-lsc] Minutes of UBL Liaison Subcommittee meeting 2002.04.26

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@sun.com>]

Minutes of UBL Liaison Subcommittee meeting 2002.04.26

Present:

   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Bill French (EIDX)
   Richard Mader (ARTS)
   Ray Seddigh (XBRL)
   Nigel Wooden (ACORD)
   Stuart Feder (invited observer)
   Garret Minakawa (invited observer)
   Sue Probert (chair, UN/EDIFACT T8)
   Tim McGrath (chair, UBL Library Content SC)

The chair read the X12 report from Mark Crawford.

Sue Probert reported a good meeting at the WCO in Australia.

We discussed ideas for incorporating other schema libraries into
the work.  Nothing definite was resolved here except for an
agreement to put more focus on the library and the design rules.

Calendar updates:  

   June 4-5 RosettaNet Solution Provider IT and TE Board meeting,
   Littleton, MA (noted)

   Sue: Remove China in july

Progress report on early review cycle:

   Tim McGrath reported formal responses from seven individuals
   and groups, with others about to deliver.  A review/management
   team has been formed to handle the input, and there will be a
   formal disposition of every comment received so far.  The
   editing team is collecting responses and going back in some
   cases (even before the 13 May cutoff) to get clarification or
   supporting material.  On 13 May they will collate responses on
   the topic level to bundle similar issues together, and then
   their agenda will be to review comments and decide on their
   disposition.  By the end of the meeting they should at least
   have the disposition plan.  A phone conference has been held
   with the OASIS CIQ TC, as a result of which the LCSC will take
   as input the current CIQ NDR and address schema and will come
   back to CIQ with an application of UBL naming and design rules
   to the CIQ address structure.

   EWG: We are not expecting a formal response from the subworking
   groups, but have received some from individual members.

   IXRetail: The amount of material to review will reduce the
   number of comments, and then people not involved will have
   questions about the work.  IXRetail has already published
   several schemas and a data dictionary with about 3500
   elements.  Richard requested a conference call between Tim and
   IXRetail to review the materials.  Richard and Tim took the
   action to schedule this for a time during the week of 5 May.
   Richard noted that the next full meeting of IXRetail will be
   the week of 8 July in San Mateo.  Jon agreed to present at the
   meeting, the schedule to be worked out in email.  Richard will
   be attending the UBL/X12 meeting in Minneapolis.

   EIDX: Similar to IXRetail -- the Guidelines Subcommittee is
   asking for technical help.  Bill, Sue, and Tim will arrange for
   Arofan Gregory to attend the meeting.

   RosettaNet -- no news.

   ACORD: Similar to IXRetail and EIDX; Nigel has distributed the
   package to a couple of technical people, but they don't know
   when they will have time to do the review.  They are trying to
   focus on the draft NDR papers rather than the draft P.O. schema.
   Tim noted that it's not necessary to focus on whole documents;
   rather, it's the structures in the library that are of primary
   interest.

   XBRL: Not a lot of reaction to Ray's announcement; people seem
   more interested in library elements like Address than whole
   documents like P.O. The emphasis on the library is a good idea,
   and we must make this clear in the review package.  It would
   also help to have an organizing preamble.

   Sue suggested that perhaps we need to appoint a contact person
   in the review cycle.  Tim responded that it would be better if
   each organization appointed a person to work with the LCSC
   during the review.

WCO Customs Data Harmonization Initiative:

   We should contact Dietmar Jost.  Sue notes that they have done
   work similar to ebXML Core Components and sent it out for
   review; we should look at this.  Sue will send it to the LSC
   list.  Another organization [name not noted] has also put
   schemas out for review.

We discussed the relationship between UBL, X12, and UN/CEFACT
without taking any specific action.  We seemed to be generally
agreed that we view CEFACT as the owner of semantic
standardization, but we don't want to be slowed down in our
current syntax definition work, and we seem to be doing OK with a
model in which CEFACT outsources that work for the moment.  CEFACT
needs to finish its reorganization (which won't happen before
September) and needs to figure out not only how it's going to work
with UBL but also with other groups.  Minneapolis is a good place
to start discussing this.

Jon Bosak
Chair, UBL LSC