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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-ndrsc message

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

Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 28 November 2001 UBL NDR meeting

1. Roll call (quorum is 9)

    Bill Burcham       YES
    Doug Bunting       YES (left y:39)
    Dave Carlson       YES
    Mavis Cournane     YES
    Mark Crawford      YES
    John Dumay
    Matt Gertner
    Jack Gager
    Arofan Gregory     YES
    Eduardo Gutentag   YES (left y:30)
    Eve Maler          YES
    Dale McKay         YES (joined x:11)
    Sue Probert        YES
    Marion Royal
    Gunther Stuhec
    Mike Rawlins

    Maryann Richards (invited expert) and Bob Glushko present as well.

    Quorum reached as of x:10.

2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meetings:

    7 November 2001 meeting:

    14 November 2001 meeting:

    21 November 2001 meeting:

3. Adoption of agenda (please send suggestions *before* meeting)
    Adopted with a change: #7 moved to just before #4.

7. Choice of schema language position

    The choice of XSD is as against other schema languages, such as RELAX NG,
    DTDS, or Schematron.  It doesn't say anything about which features in
    XSD to use, or which features available in XSD but not available in
    other schema languages to avoid.  Keep in mind that the BL Schema
    subcommittee recommended XSD as a recognition of reality.

    Motion: "To use XSD as the source format for UBL business document
    types."  Moved by Arofan and seconded by Dale.  Approved by unanimous

    ACTION: Eve to write a section for the NDR document documenting the
    choice of schema language, and a position paper for the archives.

4. Action item review

    ACTION: Arofan to create a new use case for instance constraint checking.
    Continued until November 29.

    ACTION: Arofan to write the position paper for extensions,
    using a small but complete example of needing subtraction/selection and
    DONE.  He will update as the need arises.

    ACTION: Dave to create [use case] HTML template for people to use.
    DONE. It's now a Word template.

    ACTION: Mark to revise the NDR document to reflect editorial
    directions by next meeting, if possible.
    Continued until November 30.

    ACTION: Arofan/Sue/Lisa to provide the xCBL naming guidelines (and
    all the other xCBL guidelines!).
    Continued until later today (November 28).

    ACTION: Dale to generate a use case where the actor is an implementor
    and needs to create a message with alternate (aliased) tag naming.

    ACTION: Mark to update naming position paper with our suggestions
    (including email suggestions).
    Continued until sometime before next meeting (December 5).

    ACTION: Dale to revise 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 to make them shorter and
    provide a reference to the source whence the information came.
    To be sent later today.

    Note that new actions are listed in various places below.

5. Current position paper champions, status, and priorities

    - Markup naming (A-priority)
    - Design principles
    - Relationship between UBL and UN/CEFACT constructs

    ACTION: Mark to take a look at the original XML 1.0 design principles
    to see if it's useful to add any of them to our document.

    - Choice of schema language (A-priority)

    - TPA

    - Customization (A-priority)

    - Modularization/namespaces/versioning

    - Elements vs. attributes

    - Use cases (not really a position) (A-priority)
    - Local vs. global elements

    - Code (enumerated) lists

6. Use case review

    Invited expert: Maryann Richards.  She previously worked with the
    Gartner Group, and is currently working with Dave.  She has a bit of
    XML background, and a lot of use case background.  She will be helping
    us coordinate our use cases.

    Initial impression: The connection between use cases and the eventual
    effect on design rules isn't quite clear yet.

    Brainstorming on actors (non-normative; Eve's ramblings):
    - User of UBL
      . Developer who codes to UBL as is
      . Business document instance creator
    - User of design rules
      . UBL library content designer
      . Developer who extends UBL

    We will continue this once we have the Marketing SC's input.

    ACTION: Arofan to send a pointer to the draft ebtWG specification that
    has a process diagram that will be helpful for figuring out use case

    ACTION: Sue and Maryann to do some brainstorming offline.

8. Tag structure position

    We seem to have three options, not two:

    1.  Highly structured with hierarchical information in the names

    1a. Highly structured with XML ancestry providing the object class
        and the type hierarchy providing the representation term

        . Has most of the benefits of #1, but the subelements are more
          reusable in different contexts.  Example: Tax structures and
          bank structures need payment documents, but InvoiceTaxTotal,
          FooTaxTotal, etc. (as opposed to just TaxTotal) artificially
          expands the number of elements, makes long names, and requires
          a lot more maintenance.

    2.  Semi-structured, with intuitive naming taking precedence over

    There are two circumstances we need to understand better:

    - If a patient record is able to contain generic party information,
      should a generic Party element be used, or a specific PatientParty?
      How the former option be linked back to a core component, given
      that the PatientParty option provides semantics not available in
      the type hierarchy)?

    - If a patient record needs to contain patient-specific party
      information, and the generic party type is extended to serve this
      purpose, should the element be called Patient or PatientParty?

    It was noted that the issue of element reusability will affect our
    decisions on the local vs. global element issue.

    ACTION: Dale and Sue to work up examples and examine them in light of
    the two "PatientParty" circumstances listed in the November 28 minutes.
    Other interested parties are Mark, Arofan, Eduardo.  Due by December 5.

9. Finish going through the NDR document outline and assign more champions

    New position paper assignments:

    Sue: 5.2.2 Standardization Conventions (not A-priority), with Dale
    and Mavis as helpers.

    Mark and Eve both took notes on this discussion.

    ACTION: Mark to check with Mike on what the purpose of Section 5.4 is,
    and follow up with editorial changes as necessary.

    ACTION: Mark to insert into the NDR document links to the existing
    position papers, with notes about their being extremely non-settled
    and non-normative.

10. Next steps

     Our goals for the week of December 10 are:

     - To take a snapshot of what we've got and show it off
     - To make clear what parts are decided and what parts are still
       under discussion
     - To convey to vendors what features we'll need in their products

     There will be at least a few UBL people around to hear Jon's talk.

     ACTION: Eve to coordinate the delivery of the documents to Jon.

     Agenda for next time:

     - Legal issues (following on to Arofan's posting)
     - Finish going through NDR document
     - Continue and hopefully finish the tag structure discussion
     - Hopefully start discussing the extensions paper
     - Identify any easy holes to fill in the NDR document
     - Come up with a list of messages we want Jon to give about schema
       support (e.g. namespaces)

11. Adjourn
     Adjourned z:05.
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC