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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

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

Subject: Coordination call 19 December 2003

The 19 December UBL CSC coordination call will take place
7 a.m. California time at the following number:

   U.S. domestic toll-free number: (866)839-8145
   Int. access/caller paid number: (865)524-6352
   Access code: 5705229

As usual, the call is open to all interested UBL TC members.


2003-1212-01 Code list ownership clarification


      Code list ownership (mechanism, population, identification)
      needs clarification.

   Status (2003.12.19)

      We need to make sure that we are in complete agreement on
      what needs to be done and who's responsible for doing it.

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

      We think that this describes how it's going to work:

       - LCSC produces the code list catalogue that identifies
         which code lists need to be included in UBL and provides
         the enumerated values that will be used to populate the
         code lists.

       - CLSC develops the standard schema format for the code
         lists to be used in UBL according to schema naming and
         design rules specified by NDRSC.  We hope that this
         format will be adopted outside of UBL as well, but its
         basic requirement is to accommodate the code lists in the
         UBL code list catalogue and the values provided by LC.

       - CLSC also develops a methodology for the maintenance and
         user extension of code lists (example: standard / stock /
         placebo mechanism).

       - TTSC instantiates the code lists in the catalogue by
         generating schemas that incorporate the values provided
         by LCSC in the format defined by CLSC.

   Assignments (2003.12.12)

      Ken Holman, Mavis Cournane, and Sue Probert are assigned the
      task of further clarifying the outcomes of 2003.12.12 above
      and submitting the result to the CSC.

   Carried forward (2003.12.12)

      We need to reach out to external code list agencies to work
      with us; could this be a job for the Liaison SC?  [Probably
      not; the MoU/MG might be better.  We need to consider this

   Suggested terminological clarification (2003.12.19)

      I suggest that we distinguish between a code list template
      (the format that we are standardizing for code lists) and a
      code list schema (the XSD schema containing a particular
      enumerated list).

2003-1212-02 Schema compliance to NDRs


      We need an owner for "review of schemas to ensure they
      conform to NDR rules."

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

      The responsibility for reviewing the schemas for NDR
      compliance clearly belongs to NDR.  The key questions are:

         1. Who in the NDRSC is actually responsible for doing

         2. How far are they empowered to make judgements on their
            own?  To put it another way: how and when do they
            escalate resolution on particular points to a larger

   Assignments (2003.12.12)

       - NDRSC to identify and empower someone willing and able to
         perform the NDR compliance function (or report that we
         have a resource problem).

       - NDRSC to specify an escalation plan for rule
         interpretation and conflict resolution.

2003-1212-04 RosettaNet NDR input


      We have in hand a set of suggested revisions to the UBL NDRs
      submitted by RosettaNet in early September:


      We also have the latest RosettaNet NDRs:


      We need to figure out how we are going to handle these inputs.




      The basic problem here is that the comments were received
      several months too late to be considered in the discussions
      of NDRs for UBL 1.0.  Now the question is: what (if
      anything) can be done to promote convergence at this late

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

      The coordination call didn't come to any conclusion about
      this, so we'll need to carry it forward.  Here is what I
      think we need to know in order to arrive at some kind of

         For each area of difference identified in the September
         document from RosettaNet:

          - Does this still apply to the final NDRs?

          - If so, do we agree with the suggested change in

          - If we do, what would be the practical impact of
            changing UBL NDRs to align with the RosettaNet
            suggestion in UBL 1.0 FCS?

      Without this analysis, I don't think we can do anything but
      say "Sorry, too late."


      We didn't get this far in the call 2003.12.12, but I think
      the implicit assignment is to NDRSC to tell us whether there
      are the resources available to perform the gap analysis
      outlined above.

2003-1212-05 Achieving final CCTS alignment


      There seems to be some disagreement about whether we're
      actually in alignment with CCTS.

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

    - The burden of CCTS compliance lies entirely with LCSC.  This
      is not a coordination issue.

    - The beta version does not use any UBL defined CCTS
      datatypes, so this is not yet even an LCSC issue. However,
      this has been identified as a key area for CCTS alignment
      and in SFO LCSC agreed to review this issue. It is hoped
      that whatever the outcome, our NDRs already cover how to
      deal with it.

    - TTSC had some concerns that CCTS was a moving target.  It
      seems that this is not true; CCTS 2.01 appears to be quite

    - TTSC also has some concerns about possible ambiguities and
      areas of the CCTS that may need interpretation.  We
      identified Sue Probert as our liaison in these cases.

   Status (2003.12.19)

      Correspondence is underway between Tim, Stig, Sue, and
      Marion to try to sort this out.

2003-1212-06 Submission of UBL semantics to TBG17


    - Managing relationship/coordination

    - Formal contribution of our semantics

   Status (2003.12.12)

      TBG17 has received eight or nine submissions, all featuring
      different implementations of the CCTS rules.  A TBG17 group
      is now working to produce a set of rules for submission
      formats.  When those are released, UBL will be in catch-up
      mode along with the other submitters.

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

    - We are waiting on TBG17 for submission guidelines.

    - We should expect the input we need to make a submission in
      January.  The worst case will be if the guidelines are not
      finished until after the TBG17 meeting 9 February.  But if
      the guidelines are published in January as expected, we will
      have a submission deadline of 2 February.

    - Sue Probert bears responsibility for keeping us informed.
      UBL is covered for right now.

    - LCSC is responsible for making the submission, so this is
      not a coordination issue.

    - But liaison with TBG17 is a coordination issue.  We need to
      appoint a liaison from UBL to TBG17.  Marion Royal is
      willing to serve in this capacity.

   Assignments (2003.12.12)

    - Jon Bosak to contact Stig Korsgaard to ask him how we go
      about appointing Marion our liaison to TBG17.

   Status (2003.12.19)

    - We have received submission guidelines from Stig, and
      approval of Marion as our liaison to TBG17 is now in process
      in the TC.


2003-1212-03 Schema validation


      We need a clear assignment of responsibility for validating
      schemas and example instances using various XSD validators
      every time the schemas are modified.  (This issue was not on
      the agenda for this call; it fell out of the discussion of

   Assignment (2003.12.12)

      TTSC to decide which validators shall be considered
      authoritative (there should be several) and to fix the
      responsibility for (1) running validation checks using these
      validators after each build and (2) reporting to the TC that
      the build has successfully passed all the checks.

2003-1212-07 Schema generation


      I think this refers to the whole question of who's
      responsible for what going into the next build cycle.  But I
      could be wrong; it's Tim's item.

2003-1212-08 NDR document


    - Publication/feedback schedule

    - Effect of changes on Beta -> FCS

2003-1212-09 Beta/FCS diff tracking


      How to maintain and communicate thoroughly detailed diffs of
      changes between Beta and FCS for input to the UBL
      localization SCs and early implementers

2003-1212-10 Populating the OASIS Registry with UBL artifacts


     - What is needed 

     - Who can do it

     - Deadline 15 January


      See the thread beginning at


2003-1212-11 UBL compliance


      What does it mean to be "UBL compliant"?


      TTSC (which must answer this question for practical reasons)
      is beginning to analyze the issue and is in the process of
      producing some use cases for further discussion.  I have
      forwarded their latest thinking on this in separate mail to
      the TC list.  But the question cuts across CMSC, LCSC, CLSC,
      and NDRSC, and therefore its resolution is a coordination


      See the TTSC preliminary analysis of use cases:


      And the 1.0 Beta "Guidelines For The Customization of UBL


      A paper written by the late Michael Adcock is also felt to
      be relevant to this discussion:


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