Draft Response to TBG3

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

The resolution TBG3 propose to the CEFACT Forum is..

TBG3 has acknowledged the release of UBL 2.0 published for a second public review period and is disappointed that a number of fundamental issues raised by TBG3 at the January 2006 first review period, are still pending for consideration within the next UBL 3.0 release. TBG 3 will only be able to concur with the Transport related parts of any UBL releases provided that the requirements of TBG3 are fulfilled in terms of the consistency between UBL business processes and data models and the TBG3/UNeDocs BRS and Core Components data model. TBG3 resolves to invite the UBL-TSC to participate in its work and TBG3 will communicate any deliverables produced to UBL.

As discussed on today's call we propose to send an email to Dominique Vankemmel (the Chair of TBG3) and Henk Van Maaran (the Vice Chair) explaining our situation.  My first draft at this is...

<>The UBL Transportation Subcommittee is surprised and also disappointed that we have failed to communicate our intention with regard to accommodating the concerns of TBG3 following the recent public review of UBL version 2.0.  Given our limited time and resources we have had to restrict the scope of the business processes covered by UBL 2.0.  This is not to say we do not recognize the limitations TBG3 have identified, only that we could not address them in a meaningful way in time to meet the UBL 2.0 schedule.  In fact, UBL version 2.0 is now completed and currently being ratified by OASIS, to be published in December 2006.

It is regrettable but true that the participants in the UBL Transportation Subcommittee are self funded and so attending face-to-face meetings is not always feasible.   This has been unfortunate.  For example, had UBL been able to participate in the recent Barcelona meeting of TBG3 we might have avoided such a misunderstanding of our intentions.

Be assured, UBL is committed to moving its work into CEFACT.  We believe we have a formal agreement with the CEFACT Plenary to do this.  This means the UBL Transportation Subcommittee intends to collaborate with TBG3 on all future developments. 
<>
One such development could be the extension and refinement of the Transportation Status document.  This appears to be a worthwhile task that would allow us to take an existing UBL document together with implementation experience from the US Dept. of Transport's EFM project and develop both a business process and data model consistent with both TBG3 and UN/eDocs.  The resulting artifacts can then be submitted as UN/CEFACT deliverables.  Such a work programme mirrors a similar collaboration between UBL and TBG1.

To conclude, the UBL Transportation Subcommittee takes Resolution 3 from your Barcelona meeting very seriously.  Whilst we do not believe we have acted incorrectly in these matters, we do believe we have failed to communicate our intentions accurately.  For this we apologise. 

Can we all review this text urgently and send comments to Kama so we can get this out on Friday.

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath