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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-psc message

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


Subject: RE: [ubl-psc] Draft 1 plan for UN/CEFACT harmonisation (procurement)


Mark,
 
I have reviewed the draft plan that you have prepared and have the following
comments:
 
1) Cover page - Please change your title from Chair to Co-Chair.
2) There needs to be a clear definition of the term harmonization. What does
it include and exclude.
3) Before there can be a complete harmonization, it must include
harmonization at both the structural and semantic levels.  If review of the
structural gaps are omitted, then gaps with the core components and
supplementary comments will not be addressed.  
4) Any harmonization that is initiated before there is resolution on the
interpretation of CCTS will need to be revisited and changes will be
required by either or both parties. I did not see anything in the schedule
specifically that addresses this requirement.  It exists for all documents
and is significant enough to be a separate general task.
5) Item 1 from Freddy's plans says "a. that the harmonization group
comprising UBL Procurement members and TBG1 members should work to produce
updated and new Business Requirement Specifications"
6) I do not see anything in the proposed plan that generally provides for
feedback to the UBL TC or TBG1. While this might be considered part of the
details, I believe it is important to be included in this initial proposed
schedule to emphasize the joint coordination aspects of the project.
7) Is the UBL harmonization team aware that parts of the BRS are based on a
specific interpretation of CCTS 2.01 that differs from UBL's interpretation?
Is resolution of these differences included in the proposed schedule as a
critical dependency?
 
IMHO, a complete understanding of the level of effort to complete the
identified tasks to date does not exist yet. If  project planners do not
understand the level of complexity of the tasks to be performed, any
proposed completion dates can only be broad estimates.  My suggestion is
that a clearly worded caveat be included in the document for future
understanding and reference.

Regards,
Sylvia
________________________________

From: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml@tritorr.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:46 AM
To: 'ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Cc: Kerstin Wiss Holmdahl
Subject: [ubl-psc] Draft 1 plan for UN/CEFACT harmonisation (procurement)


PSC

Attached is my first draft of a plan (with actual dates) for the
harmonisation of UBL2.0 and the work of TBG1 in UN/CEFACT.
Please can I have your comments before Monday 3rd July.

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the teleconference on that day,
but please feel free to respond to me directly with any comments.

Regards, Mark


Mark Leitch
Director - Tritorr Ltd
tel.:       +44 1932 821112
cell.:      +44 7881 822999
mail:      ml@tritorr.com
skype:    wmarkle
site:       www.tritorr.com





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