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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-ssc message

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

Subject: Re: [ubl-ssc] Proposal from China/F2F for enhanced structure

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
All the best
----- 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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk]
Sent: 20 May 2005 12:43
To: ubl-ssc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-ssc] Proposal from China/F2F for enhanced structure

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
All the best

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