Subject: UBL Transport SubCommittee MEETING Minutes 4 Sep 08
Minutes of the UBL Transport SubCommittee MEETING
4 September 2008
Andy Schoka (Chair)
Agenda Item 1. STANDING ITEMS
There is a new web site for things UBL, see
Agenda Item 2. DEVELOPING UBL 2.1 UPDATE TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS
TM reviewed the schedule for UBL 2.1. UBL 2.1 is targetted for publication in the
Mar/Apr 2009 timeframe. To achieve that target, there are a number of steps that
need to be completed in the process, including a 60 day public review, a possible
10 day public review, as well as an internal TSC and internal OASIS voting periods.
This means that we have until about the end of October to capture, document, and
agree on changes that will be in UBL 2.1.
AS continued the discussion with a report back from a recent TC meeting where he
asked about the process of submitting requirements for the UBL 2.1 update. The
following paragraph summarized the topic as documented in the TC minutes:
"AS: We need a clearer definition of what sort of input we
expect from TSC contributors. Example: additions to the
Certificate of Origin (COO).
TM: The ultimate TSC and PSC deliverable is a set of 2.1
spreadsheets. The essential input to that process is a set of
issues in the format we use for the issues list now in the
process of formation, and that has to begin with a gap analysis
of the differences between user requirements and the current
2.0 spreadsheets. We cannot perform the gap analysis, because
we don't know the contributor's needs; that work has to come
from the contributor. It would be great to have a set of
proposed revised spreadsheets from the contributor, but at a
minimum we have to have the issues in our format (description
of the problem, examples of the problem, proposed solution).
So in the case of the COO, for example, the contributor needs to begin by
going through the relevant 2.0 spreadsheet (or schema, or UML
diagram) and identifying the information items that need to be
added in order to meet their requirements."
ACTION: TM to provide 2.1 Issues List spreadsheet for use by contributors of
Transport Requirements. The spreadsheet should contain any entries already
submitted to exemplify how issues are documented. ACTION COMPLETED, see
attached Issues List.
Agenda item 2.1 EFM GAP ANALYSIS
The latest material regarding the US DOT EFM Project is located at:
In particular, see:
AS led the discussion by presenting selected highlights from the document entitled
of issue had to do with the need in UBL for additional entities. In particular, the
FIH is designed to allow communications with and participation by Authorities,
such as Customs Agencies. Further, one FIH Use Case requires a Booking entity to
allow shippers and their agents to book transportation. Also, a Delivery
Appointment entity is needed to allow supply chain partners to make appointments
for cargo delivery.
TM acknowledged that these are the kind of items that need to be documented in
the Issues list. The TSC would then have the task of evaluating the overall set of
needs and determining how best to address them. The TSC would then make
recommendations to the TC who has the final responsibility for what is included in
the UBL 2.1 release.
AV commented that UBL needs to enable related information elements to be more
closely coupled in a document. For example, within a message (or document), how
could one tie a "location" to a "transport event"?
Agenda Item 2.2 DANISH TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS REVIEW
Where we left off:
Note: this agenda item was deferred as there was no participation from
Agenda Item 3 ALIGNMENT WITH UNCEFACT CCL 08B
Note: This agenda item was deferred due to time limitations.
Agenda Item 4 OTHER BUSINESS
Jan Pedersen provided a summary description of the Freightwise project being
modeling intermodal freight transportation management (IFTM). Jan reported that
the modeling formulated 4 roles for intermodal freight management: 1. Transport
User, 2. Service Provider, 3.Traffic Manager, and 4.Transport Regulator. Jan is
eager to collaborate with other projects to achieve a common approach to IFTM.
ACTION: Jan to distribute selected project material to TSC mailing list once AMS
sends him the addresses, including guests.
Likely to be in about two weeks to give participants time to:
*review the structure of the UBL 2.1 Issues List,
*review issues already documented,
*consider forumlating issues to characterize transport requirements for UBL 2.1.
Acting Chair, OASIS UBL Transport SubCommittee