[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 16 January 2002 UBL NDR meeting
[Sorry it took so long for me to get these out. Mark sent them to me a
while back...]
1. Roll call
Bill Burcham YES
Doug Bunting
Dave Carlson
Mavis Cournane YES (x:15)
Mark Crawford YES (left y:26)
John Dumay
Matt Gertner
Arofan Gregory YES (x:25)
Eduardo Gutentag YES (x:25)
Eve Maler
Dale McKay YES
Joe Moeler YES
Sue Probert
Ron Schuldt
Gunther Stuhec
Mike Rawlins YES
Quorum not reached; proceeded informally.
2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meeting
9 January 2002
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200201/msg00001.html
Accepted by all present, but formal acceptance deferred – no quorum.
3. Adoption of agenda
Adopted by those present.
4. Action item review
ACTION: Mark to update tag structure position paper.
Continued until Tuesday 22 January.
ACTION: Sue and Maryann to do some use case brainstorming offline.
Continued until the F2F.
ACTION: Dale to work on the legal issues text provided by Arofan and give
it to Mark for inclusion in the NDR document.
DONE. Eve has forwarded to list.
ACTION: Mark and Eduardo to propose a set of tag naming
abbreviation rules before January 9. Consider Done.
See also additional new ACTIONs below.
5. Current position paper champions, status, and priorities
Mark:
- Tag structure (A-priority)
- Design principles
- Relationship between UBL and UN/CEFACT constructs
Eve:
- Choice of schema language (DONE)
Doug:
- TPA
Arofan:
- Customization (taken over by Context Methodology SC)
Bill:
- Modularization/namespaces/versioning (A-priority)
Gunther:
- Elements vs. attributes
- Document size and performance considerations (Section 6.1)
Dave:
- Use cases (with Maryann) (A-priority)
- Local vs. global elements
Mike:
- Code (enumerated) lists
Dale:
- Legal issues
6. Modnamver position
See Bill's Updated paper, sent to the list on January 14.
Bill began reviewing his updates. He made minor changes based on last
week 7+/-2 rule. :last version set this forth, but not much support
from group, so concept has been relegated to a footnote in sec 3.2.
This section now talks about optimum component size and says we will
try and manage complexity while allowing subsetting for performance
reasons.
Mavis – do you think this is too vague?
Bill – yes it is, but not sure how to address. A lot of people in OO
community strive towards this rule, so perhaps we need to re-look this.
Mark – how does vagueness fit in with a standard, and how do we
approach this?
Bill – should we spin out further (performance driver for example) to
come up with something more substantive.
Mike - Current form is adequate.
Bill – do people understand subsetting solution?
Mavis – no
Bill – it is possible to structure a schema in one big block, but
necessitates version change for overall. It is possible to structure a
schema to minimize this.
Mark – how?
Bill – see section 6 and 7. Idea of separate root schema's is that we
can manage the includes (transitive closure) that an instance for an
order doesn't necessarily include the definitions for invoicing. A big
C++ system problem that occurs all the time.
Bill – Section 4.3 table where we can add namespace identifiers when we
determine them. Are we going to use URN vs URI? ebXML Messaging just
went to URN.
Bill – some semantic control on URN's.
ACTION: Bill and Mavis to champion this issue and determine an
approach.
Bill – is the library group identifying functional component?
Mark – currently only looking at order to decompose to BIE's
(Note - Eduardo and Arofan joined at x:25.)
Arofan - believes that library group, once they begin work, will
provide quick feedback.
Section 5 – support option 3, but allow for future migration to option
4. Option 4 will require more design rules.
Section 7 – UML diagram –
ACTION: Everyone to critique diagram.
ACTION: Arofan, Tim, and Lisa to develop example based on current
thinking in library group and leveraging NDR stuff to see if it can
work. Anticipate certain part of the example will be ready for F2F
presentation.
Mike – Can Bill walk through diagrams?
Bill – yes
(Note – refer to diagrams in updated paper to follow this discussion.)
Root schema and instance file are XSD files. Instance root imports
exactly one root schema. Root schema represents all the types for one
functional stovepipe. Would define global types that would include as
needed schema modules. Each root schema has exactly one xml namespace.
Bill - Root schema defines all the types you will need, you would
include other root schemas that define types you need. Instance root
represents ubl messages. Documents should not cross own functional area
namespaces. If it lives in more than one space, then there are
significant versioning issues. At what point do we allow cross
functional includes to happen? –
Arofan - below root schema level., otherwise, root schema can include
another root schema. Core should be stuff that is truly generic that
gets used in more than one functional area.
Bill – need rules. i.e. No circular dependencies between root schema's.
Bill and Arofan - Each namespace will have a root schema. and schema
modules with a structure that makes reuse more convenient while
respecting the namespace. The module may be of interest to other
functional areas. When crossing namespace boundaries, point to
namespace and mod file you want to use, but crossing does not
transition mod file to borrowing namespace.
Bill - What about dependencies? Need to traverse tree. xCBL created
own parser to handle this issue. Namespace size drives complexity of
issue. Should we only load one functional namespace and core, or should
we say that if you borrow modules, then you have to identify namespace
at top of document. xCBL only has two levels of namespace.
ACTION: UBL approach needs to be discussed further at face to face. Two
options to consider Options 1) no borrowing across functional areas or
2) only load suborganization.
6. Agenda and goals for F2F
Goal is to reach resolution on all outstanding issue papers and related
issues.
To organize our work, we need list of all issues, prioritized, and then
we need to address one by one.
ACTION: Namespace issues need to be raised to library committee for
joint resolution.
Question - How do we come to include all dependencies and reach
resolution?
We decided we need to go through each of the issue papers by order of
importance, identify each issue, make list, note dependencies,
prioritize, and then begin deliberations and make decisions.
dependencies must be identified and tracked as they are
discovered/discussed.
We decided we need to work with context group and library group before
we start our deliberations.
We agreed we need list of interdependent issues to better organize our
work, then our weekly meetings will be more effective.
n. Adjourn
Adjourned at y:02.
--
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