UBL Transport SubCommittee MEETING Minutes 4 Sep 08

Minutes of the UBL Transport SubCommittee MEETING

4 September 2008

Attendance:

Tim McGrath (UBL TC Vice Chair)

Anne Hendrey

Al Viele

Jan Pedersen

Andy Schoka (Chair)

Agenda Item 1. STANDING ITEMS

There is a new web site for things UBL, see

http://ubl.xml.org

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:

http://www.efm.us.com

In particular, see:

http://projects.battelle.org/fih/Files/FIH%20Data%20Dictionary%20v1.xls

http://projects.battelle.org/fih/Files/FIH_Comparison_toUBL_v1.pdf

AS led the discussion by presenting selected highlights from the document entitled

"Freight Information Highway Comparison to UBL." He pointed out that one type

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:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/25237

Note: this agenda item was deferred as there was no participation from Denmark at

this meeting..

Agenda Item 3 ALIGNMENT WITH UNCEFACT CCL 08B

Note: This agenda item was deferred due to time limitations.

Agenda Item 4 OTHER BUSINESS

**Freightwise

Jan Pedersen provided a summary description of the Freightwise project being

undertaken in Norway under EU sponsorship. The project is focused upon

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.

**Next Meeting?

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.

Andy Schoka

Acting Chair, OASIS UBL Transport SubCommittee

ubl-tsc message