Re: [ubl-sbsc] UBL 2.0 Small Business Subset Scheduling

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2005-10-25 14:35 +0100, Stephen Green wrote:
>I/we were asked in the Pacific TC call to consider the
>schedule requirements for the UBL 2.0 SBS.
>
>1. I would think that we need to first have schemas.
>    - the reference start point to the schedule? (though
>     a start on content has already been made with the
>     model spreadhseets)
>2. The next task is to finalise the content (for which
>     I'd personally find the schemas almost necessary
>     and very helpful at least).
>    - this could take up to 4 weeks?
>3. Then we'd need to agree to the content
>   - a few weeks?
>4. Then I'd produce the input documents for Ken's
>     subset artifacts generator
>   - at least a few weeks?
>5. Then Ken would generate documentation/xpaths
>   - at least a further week or two, including checking?

Hopefully not even that long as the scripts are all in place ... it 
should be a matter of just pressing the button and producing them.  I 
cannot be relied upon from January through February 2006, though 
hopefully that will change.

>6. Then the package would be produced and checked
>   - a further week or two?
>7. Then SBSC would agree (or otherwise) the package
>   - a week or two (voting?, though we only have a few members)?
>8. Then SBSC submit the package to the TC prior to public review
>  - a week or two, depending on holidays/availability?
>9. Then the TC votes
>  - a week to three weeks depending on holidays/availability?
>10. Then the public review begins
>  - could take a few weeks to get started?
>11. The public review lasts 60 days?
>12. Then time to make changes before second review if necessary
>  - say two to four weeks?
>13. Then 7. to 10. again
>14. Then second public review lasts 15 days
>15. Maybe further changes and maybe a committee spec package prepared
>  - a few more weeks?
>
>Total about 40 weeks plus or minus 10 weeks
>
>I think this has to be finished by the time the normative package is finished
>quoting Jon:
>"The package is to achieve the status of an OASIS Committee
>    Specification by the time that UBL 2.0 is ratified as an OASIS
>    Standard (estimated to occur September 2006)."

That sounds like a good goal, so that both could be available at the 
same time in their respective states.

>Conclusion
>
>I think, do others agree?, we have just about the same scheduling timespan
>from schema generation to committee spec package as the normative 2.0
>package, so yes it should work out well.

I agree.

>The dependancies such as HISC's might fit well into this since they 
>do not depend on the SBS reaching CS stage.

Right ... though having SBS work available will help HISC.  We can 
base our test cases on SBS instances rather than full instances.

>It does mean a year of almost constant activity though but hopefully 
>there is ample flexibility too since many of these stages could be 
>hurried a bit and take less time perhaps.

Well said.

>I'll aim to wait about a week for comments before passing a note of our
>outcome of considerations to Jon.

Well done, Stephen.

. . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal