[ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 13 March 2002 UBL NDR meeting

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

Thanks, everybody, for an interesting and productive meeting!  I look 
forward to meeting with (most of) you next week, and to reading the 
latest revisions of the position papers.

1. Roll call
    Bill Burcham        YES
    Mavis Cournane
    Mark Crawford
    Fabrice Desré
    John Dumay
    Matt Gertner
    Arofan Gregory      YES
    Phil Griffin
    Eduardo Gutentag    YES
    Eve Maler           YES
    Dale McKay
    Joe Moeller
    Sue Probert
    Ron Schuldt         YES
    Lisa Seaburg
    Gunther Stuhec      YES
    Paul Thorpe         YES

    Quorum not reached; proceeded informally.

2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meetings

    27 February 2002 telecon:
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200202/msg00091.html

    6 March 2002 telecon:
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200203/msg00004.html

    Deferred.

3. Adoption of agenda

    Adopted.

4. Current list of remaining work

     Report from last week's meeting:
     Didn't have quorum or "official" chairs.  Focused on elements vs.
     attributes.  The sense of the informal group was to agree with the
     position in the revised position paper.

    - Tag structure (Arofan and Mark)
    - Elements vs. attributes and empty elements (Gunther)
    - How many elements per type and vice versa (Bill)
    - Abstract types (Matt)
    - modnamver, particularly namespaces and versioning (Bill)

    What papers do we want to show them next week?
    - Elements vs. attributes and empty elements
    - Code lists
    - Modnamver
    - Tag structure

    What things do we want on our agenda at the F2F?
    - Group schema code review
    - With LCSC: review Ron's native context paper
    - With LCSC: role model (how many elements per type and vice versa)
    - With LCSC: talk about documentation needs
    - With LCSC: how do simple types relate to CC types and RTs?
    - Exit criteria for the NDR SC

    New ACTION: Eve to revise the tag structure paper, and to *try* to
    revise the code list paper to use the same example as is used
    in Gunther's paper.

    New ACTION: Paper authors to send a revised version of their papers
    to the ubl-ndrsc list.

    New ACTION: On Sunday, Eve to put all the revised versions onto
    the NDR portal, in separate and also .zip format, and send an
    announcement to the ubl and ubl-comment lists that it's there;
    create a cover document describing them and also describing
    other current work that's not ready for review yet; create a few
    diskettes containing this stuff.

    New ACTION: Eve to prepare a preso on our progress for the F2F.

5. Action item review

    ACTION: Arofan and Mark to finish the tag structure paper,
    including a proposal for top-level tag naming.  Reassigned to Eve.

    ACTION: Bill and Mavis to champion the URI/URN issue and determine
    an approach.  Incorporated into modnamver.

    ACTION: Arofan, Tim, Gunther, and Lisa to develop example and code
    with LC SC.  This example should grow to illustrate the modnamver
    proposal.  The task of defining a pure example has been reassigned
    to Bill, starting with Gunther's existing work.

    ACTION: Eve and Dale (and everyone!) to comment on the schema
    code produced by Gunther et al. by COB 28 February.  Done by Dale.

    ACTION: Matt to do a writeup on the "document design time" (fixed
    vs. varying) assignment of roles.  Deferred.

    ACTION: Ron to make a specific proposal on retaining "native
    context" of data elements when they are assembled into something
    new for the purpose of A2A or B2B integration.  To be done in time
    for Barcelona attendees to read and digest it.  In progress.

    ACTION: Eve to check with Bill on "selling" the role model
    proposal.  Done.

    ACTION: All paper owners to make edits March 7-11.  Obsoleted.

6. Tag structure

    We need to broaden our coverage of "UBL Dictionary Entries" into
    a bigger discussion of all the documentation items, where the fully
    qualified element paths are the subset of the documentation that
    actually make up the data dictionary.

    The documentation has to cover at least:
    . XSD types (and whether it maps to a CC type)
    . Global top-level elements, one per document type
    . Local unqualified elements per complex type
    . Fully qualified element paths
    . Global attributes
    . UBL representation terms
    . Possibly UBL CC types
    . Code lists

    Are XSD complex types all object classes?  A few of them might
    be "mere containers" for XML neatness, but in general, complex
    types are indeed object classes.  Certainly all object classes
    have complex types, whether the object class (which is a BIE)
    is an aggregate or basic BIE.

    Are XSD local unqualified elements, defined in a complex type,
    all properties of their respective object classes?  Yes, and
    so are XML attributes defined for the type.  This suggests a
    possible naming rule for attributes (to wit, "Name them the
    same way as leaf elements"), but we haven't really agreed to
    this yet.

    ACTION: Eve to add this as a proposed rule to the next revision
    of the tag structure paper.

    What is the relationship of XSD simple types to the CC universe?
    CC semantic primitives are actually complex types in our world;
    often you need a whole cluster of data to provide the necessary
    information.  The CC work never gets as far down in their modeling
    activity as structural primitives.  (Note that CC types are
    structural and representation terms are semantic -- almost like
    roles!)

7. Adjourn

    Adjourned y:50.
-- 
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com