[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl] Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 10 April 2013 00:00UTC
Ken, In response to the action item on TSC I am attaching the input made by Audun and circulated on the TSC message list. Since there has been no comment or objection to this input I am submitting (attached) to the TC for consideration as the response to the comment, formally received. Regards, Andy Schoka -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of G. Ken Holman Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 9:34 PM To: Universal Business Language Subject: [ubl] Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 10 April 2013 00:00UTC MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC TELECONFERENCE WEDNESDAY 10 APRIL 2013 00:00UTC ATTENDANCE Kenneth Bengtsson G. Ken Holman (convener) Tim McGrath Andy Schoka Referred to in minutes by first name: Jon Bosak STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ubl.xml.org/events Review of Atlantic call minutes https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201304/msg00008.html Review of Pacific call minutes https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201304/msg00005.html Membership status review https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#membership https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=ubl https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/roster.php?num_ite ms=80 - voting status is determined by the following: - existing voting members must not miss two consecutive meetings to maintain voting status - non-voting members must attend two consecutive meetings to obtain voting status UBL 2.1 Public Review 3 - Ken H. responsible for preparing comment response document - awaiting formal TSC feedback to include for: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/201303/msg00001.html - awaiting formal PSC feedback to include for: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201304/msg00001.html - edits for the following feedback from Jon awaiting model changes from PSC: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201304/msg00002.html UBL 2.1 Release Time-line Status of the time-line - comments received during public review 4 are accommodated in the document model and documentation by Ken H. using TSC and PSC responses - committee specification draft 4 / public review draft 4 prepared by Ken H. and submitted to TC Administration for posting/processing - TC Administration runs public review 4 for a 15-day period - comments received during public review 4 are accommodated, possibly triggering another round of working draft, committee specification draft and public review draft (but hopefully not) - if none of the comments are material, then all of the changes are clearly summarized and reported to OASIS TC Administration - at a weekly meeting we request OASIS to run a Special Majority Ballot to approve the committee specification draft as a committee specification (CS) that can be held seven days after the close of the public review) https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#committeeSpec - three statements of use are obtained - committee submits CS to OASIS as candidate standard - OASIS runs a 60-day public review - OASIS conducts a membership-wide ballot - OASIS approves UBL 2.1 as an OASIS standard ANS Status - this was announced last week, has everyone reviewed it before this week's meetings? http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/liaison-policy-ansi-addendum - Ken H. approached TC Administration for guidance - very supportive response has been received - committee discussed our preference for running the BSR-8 comment period in parallel with the OASIS 60 day membership review - Ken H. to ask TC Administration for guidance on the appropriate motions and ballots and any specification modifications required for the BSR-8 review New work product - Withholding tax - Roberto is asking to create a new project for a document he is editing that has Italian and English versions: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201304/msg00009.html - for the information of TC members, Ken H. distinguished the three kinds of work products possible from the TC: - standards track - the document has a conformance clause - approval goes either to Committee Specification or all the way to an OASIS Standard - non-standards track - the document does not have a conformance clause - Committee Note - the document has numbered sections and subsections - White Paper - the document does not have numbered sections and subsections - AGREED (pending Atlantic call) to support this new work product as a Committee Note - Roberto to be asked to supply the following information: - editors of the documents - schedule of completion - which mail list will be used for open discussions - where will drafts be publicly stored (ITLSC Kavi repository or main UBL TC repository?) - Ken H. has started discussions with TC Administration for management of the process and the document templates to use DocBook for a Committee Note TC CONCALL SCHEDULE Continuing with the dates and times established late in 2012, adjusted for daylight savings time: Pacific call date/time: Wednesdays 00:00UTC Atlantic call date/time: Wednesdays 14:00UTC (Note the Pacific call takes place Tuesday evenings west of the Atlantic Ocean) Week of 2013-04-08 - regularly scheduled calls Week of 2013-04-15 - regularly scheduled calls Week of 2013-04-22 - regularly scheduled calls Week of 2013-04-29 - regularly scheduled calls 2013-09-10/12 - UBL TC Face to Face in Kars, Ontario (Ottawa airport - YOW) Will anyone be requesting a leave of absence in the near future? For privacy reasons, this discussion will be kept off of the minutes. OTHER BUSINESS None -- Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training | Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm | Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ | G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com | Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about | Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal | --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6226 - Release Date: 04/05/13
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Audun Vennesland" <Audun.Vennesland@sintef.no>
- To: "Tim McGrath" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 03:59:32 -0400
This is my proposed answer to the PRD3 comment from Carlos Martin:
"The Transport Service Description and Transport Service Description Request documents are used for announcing available transport services and for requesting such transport service announcements.
At this point there is no need for details about the specific items to be transported as the Transport Service Description Request is intended to be an informal request for a description of the transport services a Transport Service Provider has to offer. These two documents are not to be used in the booking/ordering of transport services where such item details are required. Here the Transport Execution Plan Request and Transport Execution Plan documents should be used and in these documents a detailed specification of the goods items is supported.
What we have included in the Transport Service Description Request however, is the possibility to specify the type of cargo that should be supported in a transport service. This is supported by the association from Transportation Service to Commodity Classification (for example by using the CargoTypeCode BBIE). This way the Transport User (the party with a demand for transport) can specify for example that he requires a transport service that can support handling of dangerous goods. We have also included an association to Transport Equipment enabling the Transport User to specify which equipment he will be requiring from the transport service to satisfy his transport demand.
Below is an illustration that shows at which stage of the intermodal freight management process the Transport Service Description and Transport Service Description documents are relevant.
The Transport User sends a Transport Service Description Request document to a Transport Service Provider as a request for available transport services fulfilling the Transport User´s transport demand. The Transport Service Provider then responds with a Transport Service Description that matches the details in the Transport Service Description Request (e.g. from- and to location, requested pickup and delivery time, cost preferences, cargo type preferences, etc.).
When the Transport User has received (possibly many) Transport Service Descriptions matching his demand he begins the process of booking/ordering relevant transport services using the Transport Execution Plan Requests."
From: Tim McGrath <email@example.com>
Date: lørdag 30. mars 2013 02:18
To: Audun Vennesland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Fwd: [ubl-comment] commenting on UBL 2.1 PRD3 D4 - TransportServiceDescriptionRequest
could you respond to Carlos on this?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ubl-comment] commenting on UBL 2.1 PRD3 D4 - TransportServiceDescriptionRequest Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:06:33 -0300 From: Carlos Martin <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
I´m analizing the TransportServiceDescriptionRequest, and I couln´t found what is the element in which the good items to transport can be detailed.In TransportServiceDescriptionRequest->TransportationService->TransportEquipment->GoodsItem, I think that Items can be detaild but the meaning of TransportEquipment is different of good to be transported.
Why this schema, not support the goods to be transported?
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3267 / Virus Database: 3161/6218 - Release Date: 04/01/13
--- End Message ---