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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-tsc message

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

Subject: TSC Telecon 8 Jan 09 7pm EST

AGENDA FOR UBL Transport SubCommittee MEETING

00:00 UTC Friday 9 Jan  2009, 7:00pm EST (Thursday evening)




****** CON CALL NUMBER! ******

    Skype: +9900827043982678

    US/Canada toll-free: 1-888-350-0075

    International: 201-793-9022

    "Conference Room Number": 3982678 then #

       (applies only if calling one of the phone numbers)


There is a new web site for things UBL, see


For a calendar of UBL and related events, see


UBL Customization Guidelines (60 day public review closed 29 Nov) to be discussed at F2F meeting in Fremantle 19-22 Jan 09




This is the primary focus for the meeting.

Continue work on alignment of UBL 2.0 Transport information items

GoodsItemBundle(Andy) (summary at:



ResidualBundle(Anne); especially see Ann Hendry email regarding questions arising.(email attached)


using UNCEFACT CCL 08B 14Oct 08 ICG




Next Meeting? Date and time to be discussed…….

Andy Schoka

Acting Chair, OASIS UBL Transport SubCommittee





--- Begin Message ---
Hi Andy,

Great talking to you again today.  I think we're making great progress!   It will be nice to have some completion on these items and be able to move on to other submissions.

Below are the questions I have for Tim from our conversation on the CCL alignment this morning for the area I was working on.

Let me know if you have any questions on this.  I think it's not necessary to put these into spreadsheet or any other more formal format since hopefully they will be answered and disposed of rather quickly.


For Shipment Stage:

-- Transport Means. Type. Code and Transport Movement. Mode. Code essentially have the same values when you look at their code lists as documented in CCL.  Mode points to UNCL Rec 19 and Means points to UNCL Rec 28.  However, 28 is a subset of 19.  They both have values such as 'Maritime', 'Road', 'Rail', 'Air', etc. which is fine for 'Mode', but 'Means' should be more of the type of transportation vehicle information (type of means of transport for any of those modes).  Therefore I believe the CCL note on Rec 28 might be incorrect.  I don't see any other pointer to a code that is more aligned with 'Means', though.  At least the name is reasonable even if their example is not so we can leave that as is if you agree.

-- For the Shipment Stage 'PortLocation' associations, the first two had almost identical 'port' entities in CCL denoted in the name.  However, the last one (transshipport), when in CCL, does not contain the word 'port'.  How is 'port' being used in UBL here -- does it mean a sea/water port, or any place of transfer of a shipment/consignment (and I suppose at this point I should ask what is the difference between 'shipment' and 'consignment')?

For CertificateofOriginApplication:

-- In CCL, there is a generic 'document' associated with each 'consignment', and also with each 'consignment item'.  Can there be a different COO (and possibly therefore COO Application) for different items in a consignment?

-- In CCL, there is nothing at all that seems to deal with COO other than a code that lets you specify that the 'document' associated with a 'consignment' or 'consignment item' is a COO (through UN CL 1001, 'Document Name Code' as the noted code list for 'Document. Type. Code).  If I can relate the CCL 'Document' to the CertificateOfOriginApplication then I can probably get relationships for a few of the COOApplication elements (status, issuer, etc), but not more specific items such as JobID, or even ApplicationStatusCode (I can get the 'document' status, but not the 'application' status, which would be different).

-- This all leads me to wonder if COOApplication s/b a top level message, since it is the beginning of a transaction of document exchange, similar to initiating a procurement process with a PO.  Then what you'd get back as a response, in the end, would contain the COO (or the COO would follow the culmination of a COOApplication exchange).  Does that make sense -- looking at the spec I would add the COOApplication document to the COO process map, because if it's important enough to track then it seems we should represent it somewhere?  I'm sure you guys have hashed this out already quite a bit, but just trying to figure out what the thinking was and how to map to CLL.  I looked for something that might have been a recent version of a COO requirements paper, but haven't found anything on line or in the distribution.  I do have something from Crimson Logic from 2004.  In there, they don't have an Application document either, but then they also don't have an Application Status, they have a COO Response.  Perhaps COO doc and COOA doc are one and the same, and we just might need to tighten up the terminology?  Could really use your guidance here!

-- Last but not least, there appears to be a disconnect (or we could not find the connection) between the model of the relationship of COOApplication, EndorserParty, and Endorsement.  In the UML diagram for the Transportation Library, COOA is associated with EndorserParty, and EndorserParty is associated with Endorsement.  However, in the spreadsheet model, while COOA contains an association with EndorserParty, EndorserParty does not contain an association with Endorsement.  Nothing does.  It's the other way around (Endorsement contains an association with EndorserParty).  Should COOA contain an association with Endorsement rather than EndorserParty?  Otherwise we're not understanding the linkage between Endorsement and the COOA or EndorserParty.

That's it until we get past these few questions.

Thanks for all your help!


--- End Message ---

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