|
Hi Sue,
Previously I had added the TBG17 layout spreadsheet
as a linked
worksheet behind the UBL layout worksheet in every
appropriate
spreadsheet file. It looks like now we'll have to
update both of these.
Would this solution still be appropriate? It would
need some work
to update it. I had the TBG17 cells driven by
formulas referencing
the respective cells in the UBL layout
worksheet.
On the other hand, changing to just use the TBG17
layout would need
a TC decision and last time the problem against it
was that it didn't
have everything in it that UBL needs for its design
process. In short
the UBL layout is for design and the TBG17 layout
for reporting to
TBG17. If there is no value keeping both, I'd agree
we could just
produce one or the other but I think there may
still be value in
producing and publishing both. I guess this is for
the modelers to
decide.
All the best
Steve
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 1:21 PM
Subject: RE: [ubl-ssc] Proposal from
China/F2F for enhanced structure
Hi
Stephen
If
the spreadsheet structure is to be reviewed to cover ACCs as well, then I
suggest that the latest TBG17 submission template structure should be taken
into consideration. Marion can provide this as the UNBL liaison
to TBG17. The closer that these two spreadsheet
templates become, the easier the submission to the UN/CEFACT ACC Library
harmonisation process becomes. Also, as EDIFIX understands the TBG17
format this should make for less unnecessary mapping
exercises.
regards
Sue
Greetings
I have it down that we should be meeting
next
Thursday so I thought I'd propose that
we
take a little time to consider the
proposals
from China (following plenary
discussions)
for how to enhance the spreadsheets'
modular structure to cater for
expansion
and CC requirements.
I'm not sure how the timescale is
envisiaged
for this. I'm also concerned to get
feedback
on how things will be if we don't have a
set
of instructions from NDR team until near
the
end of June (as the schedules have
been
indicating recently).
I wrote to the TC a response (sorry it was
hurried
and poorly set out due to time
constraints) to the
spreadsheets proposal which might help
discussion.
I've also prototyped another set of
schemas
to see whether version 2.0 could easily
use
the ATG2 datatype schemas and how
future
minor releases might use polymorphism.
This
isn't yet agreed in NDR but might have
been
discussed in the Wed Atlantic call in time
for
our meeting on Thursday.
Would folk be able to attend
Thursday?
It might be agood idea to aim to
attend
the Wed TC call too as I hope there
will
be further discussion of the 2.0
schema
requirements.
All the best
Steve
|