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] | [List Home]

Subject: UBL NDR SC Minutes 4 June 2003

LCSC - Please note item 5b.

The UBL NDR SC held a meeting at 11:30 EST 4 June 2003.  http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2003&mon=06&day=04&hour=15&min=0&sec=0

	1.	Roll Call and Welcome from the chair (Mark)

Mavis Cournane		Yes x:45.
Tony Coates 			Yes leave x:45
Paul Thorpe			Yes
Mark Crawford		Yes
Eduardo Gutentag		Yes
Dan Vint			Yes
Jessica	Glace			Yes left at x:30
Eve Maler			Yes joined at x:10
Jon Bosak			Yes leave y:15
Anne				Yes
Bill Burcham			Yes

Mike Grimley
Chin Chee-Kai
Lisa Seaburg

Other Absentees
Matt Gertner
Kris Ketels
Gunther Stuhec

We do not have quorum and proceed informally. 

2.  Acceptance of minutes from previous meetings -deferred due to lack of quorum.

3.  Adoption of agenda - adopted.

4. Review NDR release schedule/action items:

20030514:  Mavis get last two days of London minutes sent out. - Open

20030514:  Lisa add double check NDR rules for business document naming as agenda item for QA of NDR document. - Open.  This may be tied into naming issue being addressed by UBL CSC SC.

20030514:  Start issue thread on email.  Ann Hendry, is grouping the comments from the comment review and will send out each one as a separate issue. - Talked in meeting instead.  One has gone to email - the DSig.  Item closed.

20030514:  UBL chairs will have paper regarding the naming convention to be used, for naming business documents. - Closed

20030514:  LCSC should be responsible for the Abbreviations and Acroynyms Control List.  Yes, we agree.  Mavis and Lisa will send email of discussions to the LCSC list. - Open.

20030514:  Mavis to go through minutes, look for any decisions made and have list of rules that need to be reflected in the minutes. - Mavis has completed the effort and  submitted to Mark and Lisa.  Mark will send to listserve. - Closed. 

20030514:  Reverse engineering of the schema. The NDR QA team should be checking to see of the Perl script has any rules in it that are not documented in the NDR document.  Also check for current NDR rules to make sure they are reflected in the schema. - Still  Open.

200305014:  Lisa will send Code List document to Tony Coates, and they will continue conversation on code lists. - Open.  

5. Discussion Items:

	a.	Containership.  

	EG Containership would occur automatically around any element that would occur on 1 to n with name of element list, but then Dan raised the issue raised regarding 0 to n, Then Chee Kai said UBL Container.  After discussion we agreed that the Chee Kai proposal was a change to what was decided in London from an "other than technical" perspective and the chair should rule out-of-order.  Dan believes that his proposal is fixing a technical problem.  He thinks that if you have a container mechanism, then you should be able to use it.  Eduardo thinks that 0 to n might only be one or two items.  Dan thinks that the way the rule is defined, you can not apply consistently and it should be changed to allow for use of 0 to N.  Dan is worried about empty elements.  Dan is to prepare a more detailed email with specific examples.

	b. Digital Signatures

	This issue was raised by Dave Burdett.  He has asked to be a participant in the discussions.  Jon believes that he has already added Dave as a member non-voting for the TC. Mark to take for action for the NDR list.  Paul believes that we may be able to avoid this whole issue by using external mechanism.  Mark talked about include and the W3C XML DSig spec.  Eduardo says you can do external.  Eve says that XML signature allows you to associate signatures with a document while having the signature separate.  Eve also said that Mark is right that you can allow for extending the schema through include.  Some other ways are to use channel security (transport security) ie ebMS.  There is also the OASIS WSS, which has some SOAP header extensions that allow you to associate the signature with the payload and goes a step further to be specific to the actual messaging system.  The reason for imbedding in the payload is if you want it to be really persistent and don't want to go out to the network to get it because if the signature is external to the payload then it gets stripped off.  EG - thinks that UBL should be agnostic on this issue and does not believe that it is something that UBL should do.  He thinks that users that may need persistence, then it should be handled as an allowable context specific extension.  Paul confirmed what Eve had said regarding persistence.  Anne indicated that LC has in fact made a decision to support DSig.  Mark express support for Eduardo's position.  Anne asked if someone would get back to LCSC.  Mark indicated he would try and join the next LCSC call, but we still did not have a NDR consensus. Eve says that what is proposed is feasible, but may not be desirable.   Bill believes that things like non-repudiation and tamper protection is handled by various transport mechanisms.  Anne says that LCSC may want the signature to stay with the document.  Bill believes that we may be on a very slippery slope with this issue and that there are many difficulties inherent in trying to bring this into UBL.  Paul believes that the purpose for a digital signature is usually multiple fold 1) signing a particular portion or document ensures that the document has not been modified and 2) who the document came from.  The problem is that you have to maintain the canonical form of the document along with the decision.  Bill asserts that XML DSig recanonicalizes the original submission.  Paul says it depends on the approach.  Mark to send minutes to LCSC and be on next LC call. 

	c.	Code List Rules document.  

	Mark and Monica discussed last week at NIST eBusiness convergence meeting.  Opportunity exists to receive inputs from OAG and RosettaNet and to get other standards bodies to agree to using a converged approach.  Mark to talk to Lisa about taking lead with NIST group.

	d.	Numbers and Names for UBL Namespaces.  

	We are not sure of the issue here and Gunther was not on the call.   Deferred until next week.

	e.	Use of Qualifiers in XML Tag Names.  

	Gunther raised this issue last meeting.  We agreed that the use of qualifiers is allowed.  

	f.	Use of Object Class Term in Tag Names. 

	The rule is clear regarding using object class terms.  However, there is no prohibition to having a property qualifier that is the same as the object class.  This technique can be used by LCSC as necessary.

6.	Comment Review. 

			a.	One of the schema files (core component file) has both CCD and CCT.  What are CCDs?  If they are data types, they should be in a separate schema file.  Gunther thought they were a typo? But then thought that CCD stood for Core Component Data Type?  In Denver we decided that we would convey all storage requirements identified in Section 7 of the CCTS, including data types.  With respect to the comment to store in a separate file, this is a happy-to-glad and should be left up to the LCSC.

			b.	Question regarding the NDR rule for capitalizing acronyms.  Mark to clarify that rule requires that acronyms be capitalized as part of the name.

			c.	Question regarding use of punctuations in tags.  Mark to review wording to ensure this is as restrictive as possible and perfectly clear.

			d.	Use of UUID's.  UUID's are not part of our scope.  We said that if someone wanted to do UUID (vis a vis UDEF) then they could.

			e.	UBL schema should be referencing ISO code lists.  NDR is happy with the LCSC response.

			f.	NDR element versus attribute.  Mavis to select words from the original decision to help Anne craft a response.

			g.	Do not confuse the term ID or Identifier with Code or Symbol.  This is a CCTS issue.

			h.	Date/Time Type.  This is a CCTS issue.

			i.	What are the rules by which XML schema are derived from the information model.  Anne to craft response.

7.  Other Business. None

8.  Adjourn at y:50

Mark Crawford
Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7481 
Wireless (703) 655-4810
"Opportunity is what you make of it"

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