AW: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004

["Michael Dill" <dill2@gefeg.com>]

Hi,

When I started to understand UBL, I thought that NDR defines and describes the structures and rules, LSC delivers content except for codes, CLSC delivers content for codes/enumerations and Tools&Techniques produces. Now it seems (maybe just for me) that everybody does something independently.

 

Also I've learned that LSC takes care of the model structures, which partially do not yet exist, and NDR defines DataType etc rules for the model level, where I cannot see all this implemented somewhere in the LSC hosted models. CLSC discusses how to express codes in schemas, but how to derive code list schemas from a non existing code list model, which should be a part of the whole UBL model? In other words, I'd be happy to see NDR describing both model and schemas and how to come from model to schema.

 

If this impression is correct, then we do not work very professional, I think. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

I'd like NDR to describe for dummies like me why UBL needs data redundancy in the spreadsheets (Representation Terms vs. Data Type).

 

Also it could explain what the purpose of  the empty spreadsheet columns with facet information is. If the indicated DataType (column Representation Terms or Data Type) carries this information already, then there is no need to have the additional spreadsheet columns with facet information. Otherwise the facet information describe a new, qualified dataType. Then the indicated DataType (column Representation Terms or Data Type) has to be replaced by another, more qualified one [This is what CCTS and TBG17 require]. In both cases the spreadsheet columns with facet information carry redundant, and therefore dangerous, not well maintanable information. Solution: The facet columns must be moved to a data type spreadsheet. The columns Representation Term Qualifier plus Representation Term have to be the pointers from the document and reusable spreadsheets to the appropriate entry in this new data type spreadsheet. From the new data type spreadsheet there has to be a link to the code lists.

OR: UBL has a concept to consider these facet information in the current spreadsheets just as annotation/documentation. Then, this would be worth to have such a note both in NDR and spreadsheet.

 

 

MIchael

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mark Palmer [mailto:mark.palmer@nist.gov]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2004 00:23
An: ubl-clsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: Fwd: he rules  [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004

CLSC:

Re: 
  "a) SP raised the issue that we probably need to clarify to what extent, if
any, our work can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed and
reported that lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call to use the same code list
methodology as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed and amended
where necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft statement and
circulate this in the first instance to the co-chairs."

If the work of the CLSC is not being considered for UBL 1.0, what is the avenue for it's inclusion?

Will this topic be carried forward to the UBL plenary later this month?

Has anyone seen a schedule for the UBL meeting Feb 23-27 at LMI in McLean, VA and will there be a meeting of the CLSC with the LCSC?  If you have the schedule, please forward it.

--Mark Palmer  (just an observer in CLSC)

From: "Sue Probert" <sue.probert@dial.pipex.com>
To: <ubl-clsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:52:36 -0000
Subject: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004

Dear all

As there were only three people for most of the call today I noted the
following informal minutes from today's call.

Present:
Sue Probert (chair)
Anne Hendry
Paul Spencer
Marty Burns (last half hour)

Regrets:
Ken Holman
Mavis Cournane
Michael Dill

Agenda:
1/ Review of Action List:
TC/MHC?: To send information to MD
MB: To modify document to cover agreed empty code list decision
PS: to provide his new requirements in a list to the CLSC list for
inclusion in the Requirements document

2/ Review of document status and timescales

3/ AOB

Minutes:

1/ There are three remaining editing tasks to complete the Requirements
section:
a) MB has sent Word formatted version of the latest draft to TC and is
awaiting his edits. MB will ask TC when this will be available.
b) PS has sent his input to MB. MB to complete editing in these points asap.
c) SP raised whether the name datamodel in the context of our document could
be renamed metamodel to differentiate this from business data models. MB
proposed that some wording changes could be introduced to clarify this
difference. MB to propose changed text.

2/ MB will hopefully be able to complete the editing ready for internal
circulation of teh Requirements Section in time for it to be discussed and
hopefully approved on next week's call. The next stage following SC approval
will be to send this to the csc for eliciting comments from the other scs.

3/ AOB

a) SP raised the issue that we probably need to clarify to what extent, if
any, our work can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed and
reported that lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call to use the same code list
methodology as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed and amended
where necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft statement and
circulate this in the first instance to the co-chairs.

b) SP, on behalf of CN, aske MB whether he had been able to follow up with
Mark Palmer with regards to input to the document. MB is to see MP tomorrow
and following that he agreed to update the group with the latest situation.

regards

Sue

Mark E. Palmer
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8630
Gaithersburg, MD  20899
USA

email: mark.palmer@nist.gov
tel: 301-975-5858
fax: 301-975-5433