[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: More correct minutes of the Santa Clara UBL TC meeting, 1-5 November 2004
Fixing yet another omission from the attendance record; nothing
else changed.
Jon
##################################################################
MINUTES OF THE SANTA CLARA UBL TC MEETING, 1-5 NOVEMBER 2004
##################################################################
Note that these minutes cover only the TC plenary sessions, during
which the TC was not quorate but operated under our standing rules
as if it were a committee of the whole empowered to report back
(in this very report) to the full TC via email. Meeting time not
devoted to these plenary discussions was spent working on EDIFIX
configuration and completion of the NDR document.
IMPORTANT: Voting members of the UBL TC have one week from the
posting of these minutes to register any disagreement with the
recommendations of the TC subgroup meeting in Santa Clara. Items
for which silence will be taken as consent are signaled by the
appearance of "Agreed:" at the beginning of the item.
PARTICIPANTS
Jon Bosak (chair) [M-F]
Mavis Cournane [M-F]
Mark Crawford (vice chair) [M-F]
Michael Grimley [M-F]
Eduardo Gutentag [MTh]
Anne Hendry [M-F]
David Kruppke [MTuW]
Bill Meadows [M]
Marion Royal [MTuWTh]
Ray Seddigh [M-F]
Paul Thorpe [MTuWTh]
Sylvia Webb [M-F]
Peter Yim [M-F]
By phone: Stephen Green [MTuThF]
G. Ken Holman [M]
Tim McGrath [MWTh]
Thomas Lee [MWTh]
Monica Martin [MTu]
Kumar Sivaraman [Th]
Lisa Seaburg [W]
Patrick Yee [M]
##################################################################
MONDAY MORNING (OPENING) PLENARY 1 NOVEMBER 2004
##################################################################
HISC REPORT (G. Ken Holman, by phone)
The HISC will begin to meet starting 9 November at 8:30
p.m. Washington time; notice will be posted to the HISC list.
JB to add HISC to call for participants.
JB to contact Micah Dubinko.
Ambrosoft has announced the availability of the Crane UBL
stylesheet library as a single jar file -- creates HTML file or
FO file; standalone; no charge to user.
JB to announce availability of Ambrosoft formatter.
SSC REPORT (Anne Hendry)
The SSC report can be found at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/9965/sf_ssc_opening.ppt
AH has the work list for this week.
JB to add a link from the TC web page to the SSC FAQ when told
that it's ready to be published.
NDR TEAM REPORT (Mavis Cournane)
MavisC: All the comments received during the 30-day review have
been collected and provided to the team for consideration this
week. Goal is to have the revised NDR 1.0 doc complete by the
end of the meeting.
Agreed: Since none of the changes is expected to be
substantive, we can then go straight to another CD ballot
without further public review. Changes will be logged.
CODE LIST TEAM REPORT
MarkC: Code lists were discussed in the eBSC meeting; we
reminded the eBSC that this is in OASIS as part of UBL. We
need to find some way to make possible the involvement of
non-OASIS people.
Agreed: We should invite the eBSC to form a liaison group
to work with our code list team in completing the code list
specification and advancing it to CD status.
JB to send mail to Mark Palmer. MarkC will follow up in person
next week in a briefing to NIST 9 November.
JB to add code list team to request for participants.
JB to formally invite all of ATG to participate (Anders
Grangard chair, MarkC vice chair).
TBG17 LIAISON TEAM REPORT (Marion Royal)
MR: Tim McGrath has done a sweep to compare with UBL BIEs and
ABIEs. Approximately 26 of the BIEs implement at TBG17 CC; not
equivalent because of different representation terms. TM not
very encouraged. Difficult to make distinction between ACCs
and ABIEs; apparently some subjectivity in the assignment to
these categories. Will continue to work on this. The question
is: must there be a one-to-one correspondence to keep an
alignment with CCTS?
MarkC: According to Section 7 of the CCTS, we have to identify
a CC for every BIE, but there is no requirement to map to TBG17
CCs. The simplest solution is to turn our library into CCs.
We don't have to claim conformance with TBG17 CCs.
MR: Alignment with TBG17 will have to be a UBL 2.0 decision.
Agreed: In the UBL 1.x time frame, we will just maintain
liaison with TBG17 as it works to clarify its process without
concern at this time for compliance with the TBG17 CC catalog,
which is still evolving, and hope to achieve alignment with the
TBG17 CC catalog in UBL 2.0.
Agreed: The TBG17 Liaison Team will suspend weekly conference
calls. (MR continues to serve as team lead and as our liaison
to TBG17).
TAX XML LIAISON TEAM REPORT (Sylvia Webb)
SW: The team had its first conference call last week. We tried
to understand why the Tax XML TC needs data embedded in UBL
messages, but everything we heard was outside the scope of the
payload, having to do with communications protocols and
application design. They agreed to internally investigate the
content of UBL messages to identify mandatory data and come
back with specific work requirements. In the Tax XML TC
meeting later that day, it was decided that in addition to
analyzing UBL messages, they will do a white paper on the
requirements for embedding UBL in XBRL or vice versa. They
will not come back to the Liaison Team till the white paper is
done, so there will be no update for a while from the LT until
this input is received.
MarkC: It's not clear what the requirements are; the bulk of
the questions are at the application layer rather than the data
layer. The main need seems to be for transaction information,
for example the info conveyed by ebMS or the CEFACT generic
header. We need them to give us clear requirements.
OTHER LIAISON REPORTS
MarkC: UN/CEFACT ATG: The UDT and CC schema modules were
published back to the UBL list, but we never picked this up.
We need to make sure that this is part of UBL 1.1 and UBL 2.0
discussions.
MarkC: Need to follow up on a summary posted earlier;
additional changes were made last week by Garret, but there are
still differences with UBL 1.0. This was a topic of discussion
at eBSC; RosettaNet and CIDX are also interested.
MarkC: ATG NDRs: Have reviewed 300+ comments and resolved all
but two. The editor is starting to update the document for
ATG2 review by the end of the month. One comment is
philosophical/technical: no namespace versions for minor
changes. The other is Garret's; he is convinced that XSD does
not allow derivation by restriction across namespaces.
JB: What about the rule that deviates from the MoU/MG decision
mandating UTF-8 on the spurious grounds that UTF-16 is required
for some languages?
MarkC: No progress on that.
MarkC: Global/local: Some LMI people are testing the idea that
it might be possible to define two sets of schemas embodying
the two different approaches but designed in such a way that
instances would validate against both of them.
REGARDING COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE OASIS VOTE ON UBL
STANDARDIZATION
Agreed: All technical inconsistencies were resolved in CD
revision. The comments received during the ballot do not
invalidate the technical accuracy of the candidate
specification. The two negative votes reflect disagreements
about direction that were resolved during the process that
created the specification; they do not reflect upon the
validity or accuracy of the specification. OASIS
Administration should be requested to proceed with
standardization.
JB to put the question of whether to proceed with
standardization before the TC by email then and follow up with
OASIS Administration.
##################################################################
MONDAY AFTERNOON PLENARY 1 NOVEMBER 2004
##################################################################
UBL 1.1 WORKFLOW
Agreed:
- Parallel workteams under central coordination of the TC
- Work we can accomplish will depend on the resources
available
- Reviews should be performed on the whole 1.1 bundle, not
piecemeal (so we should have the whole thing together before
we start review cycles)
- But we should publicly forecast our intentions in order to
avoid unnecessary external customizations
- Our basic work items are the ones on the current work list;
these consist primarily of 1.0 leftovers and the Certificate
of Origin
- Nov/Dec 2004: Point to the work list as FYI, "these are the
items we will be considering"; set 1 January end date for
input on these items
JB to update work list and request input.
UBL 1.1 SCHEDULE
Agreed: Aim to have UBL 1.1 CD approved by start of TC meeting
in early November 2005.
Then working backward, we get a rough schedule for the year.
[To save space, I've omitted this and then put the schedule we
finally arrived at over the course of the week in the report of
the Friday plenary at the end.]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
TUESDAY MORNING PLENARY 2 NOVEMBER 2004
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
ISSUES LISTS
Agreed: We will need to maintain issues lists, errata, and
white papers for:
- NDR spec (1.0 errata, 1.1 reviews)
- Code List spec (1.0 errata, 1.1 reviews, white papers)
- Customization spec (1.0 errata, 1.1 reviews)
- UBL 1.0 Standard, possibly per schema or spreadsheet (assess
after we see how much) (1.0 errata, 1.1 reviews)
- Documentation (1.0 errata, 1.1 reviews)
- Any other major components of the release (1.0 errata, 1.1
reviews)
Agreed that errata compilation and publication is the
responsibility of the document editor.
SUBCOMMITTEES VS. TEAMS
The results of this discussion were summarized in mail sent to
the UBL list 3 November 2004 under the heading "Possible
subcommittee reorganization." Much of this plan was later
abandoned after further discussion in the Thursday afternoon
plenary.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
TUESDAY AFTERNOON PLENARY 2 NOVEMBER 2004
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
LATE 1.0 INPUT
The group reviewed a message received today from Gunther Stuhec
explaining SAP's negative vote on UBL 1.0.
Agreed: Gunther's message contains nothing new, and the
conclusion reached Monday stands.
UBL 1.1 WORKFLOW
Results of this session have been included in the Monday
afternoon report above.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
WEDNESDAY MORNING PLENARY 3 NOVEMBER 2004
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
CHARTER REVIEW
We skipped this session so that we could work in teams on
EDIFIX configuration and NDR completion. We will revisit
charter revision after OASIS finishes its revision of the TC
process.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON PLENARY 3 NOVEMBER 2004
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
LOCALIZATION
This session was poorly attended, probably due to insufficient
visibility of this item among the localization chairs.
Agreed: Let's suggest to the Localization SCs the following
schedule:
- End the comment period at the end of November
- Finish the dictionary translations by the end of December
JB to attempt a master dictionary (compilation of all the
translations in one spreadsheet). This may or may not work.
TM: Each entry of such a dictionary could be assigned a
relative URI, and that could be put into the documentation area
of the 1.1 schemas.
PY: The business terms in the translation are not unique.
TM to discuss business term uniqueness with TL and see how much
work it would take to assign a unique local business term to
each UBL name.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
THURSDAY MORNING PLENARY 4 NOVEMBER 2004
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
NEW UBL CONTENT
MarkC: At the beginning of this TC, we adopted a set of target
documents; if we're not going to execute on that, we should say
so, and if we are, we should move ahead.
JB: The APEC list of 17 trade documents is another good set of
targets.
Much discussion on this point and related points ensued.
Outcomes:
- In order to be guided by user experience in determining
future direction and to provide implementation examples for
1.1, we should encourage the use of UBL by other OASIS TCs.
JB to follow up with OASIS SOA, BPSS, and eGov TCs.
- Expanding our simple business scenario might be a good place
to start thinking about the future, and discussions around
this topic might attract more participation.
- The question of which processes and doctypes to add to UBL
might profitably be the subject of an extended public
discussion about goals for UBL 2.0. But it would take a
team to properly guide such a discussion.
JB to add this to the call for participation.
RECRUITMENT AND RESOURCE DISCOVERY
JB: Work item: the construction of a "help wanted" call for
participation in UBL 1.1. Beyond that, some companies are now
going to have an investment in UBL; how do we get them to step
up to their responsibility to help develop and maintain it?
RS: We need to develop business models (value scenarios) that
will provide an incentive for service providers.
RS and JB to develop a stock pitch on the benefits of
participation.
JB to notify the following that we are looking for participants
to develop pilot projects and interoperability tests:
BEA
Booz Allen
Deloitte
EDS
GXS
IBM consulting
Microsoft
Northrup Grumman
Oracle
SAIC
SeeBeyond
Sterling
Sun PS
US Govt Financial Management Services
MARKETING AND OUTREACH
RS: A key to recruitment might be regionalization...
JB: UBL users groups... Each of our organizations could host a
local meeting of UBL users, using the ubl-dev list for
announcements. (A good way to discover prospects, too.)
MR: Someone needs to provide UBL training on DVD... Sponsors
willing to build training media could be offered free
advertising. The UBL TC gives them access to the experts; the
training companies could sell it or give it away.
JB to approach training companies with a pitch analogous to the
one described about for service vendors; ask MM for contacts and
also our Asian participants.
IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
No new implementors so far, but a lot of questions.
INTEROPERABILITY TESTING
JB: We were offered a slot for XML 2004, but I turned it down
as too early yet.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
THURSDAY AFTERNOON PLENARY 4 NOVEMBER 2004
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
SEMANTIC HARMONIZATION
See Monday morning plenary.
SUBCOMMITTEES VS. TEAMS REVISITED
TM: If we have SCs, they should be organized in a way that
reflects deliverables (see mail to ubl list).
MavisC: Instead of the "SC of the week" we could have "the hot
topic of the month" to attract those particular people.
MarkC: But you don't do a project linearly.
JB: Could have key subject plus parallel teams...
MR: could alternate meetings...
(Much discussion)
MR: Make it the culture of the TC that everyone is subscribed
to all of the subcommittee lists.
Agreed: This is a good idea. We could organize SCs by
deliverable.
Agreed:
- Keep current SC deployments. The main focus right now is
1.1 itself (and working through the items already in front
of us as a TC).
- Divide the two-hour Atlantic and Pacific TC meetings in
half, the first and second halves of which are to be spent
as follows [note that this doesn't start until we have
finished the EF configuration work begun at this meeting]:
- For the Atlantic meetings till the end of February 2005:
- First half of each meeting UBL 1.1 adds from the work
list
- Second half alternates between NDR and Code Lists
(because these specs are in the critical path for
EDIFIX configuration)
- For the Pacific meetings till the end of February 2005:
- First half of each meeting UBL 1.1 adds from the work
list
- Second half alternates between Localization and
Certificate of Origin
- After February, we devote the second half of the Atlantic
Meeting to customization guidelines and extension
methodology.
- The second half of the Pacific meeting after February is
left partially unscheduled for the moment; part will
continue to be used for localization, but the rest may be
used for other major content contributions, human interface
work, or 1.1 Q/A and packaging.
ONTOLOGY REPORT
Peter Yim gave a report on the Ontolog Forum's CCT-Representation
project, which is an attempt to establish an Ontological Basis for
ebXML Core Component Types. A copy of that report can be found at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/10107/ubl-ontolog-20041104.ppt
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
FRIDAY MORNING (CLOSING) PLENARY 4 NOVEMBER 2004
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
NDR REPORT
NDR Team: The revised NDR CD is nearly done and will be
finished in a work session immediately following the TC
plenary. [And so it happened.] Put it out for ballot.
JB to put out the revised CD for ballot immediately following
handoff after the meeting. [And it was so.]
JB to make sure that the NDR CD is in to OASIS for
standardization in advance of the XML 2004 conference and to
mention in his presentation.
SSC REPORT
AH: Started with comments and fixes from SG and reached
agreement on them. Moved on to review EF requests for
spreadsheet changes, some controversial and some not; both
sides have AIs to define the effect of changes.
Went through NDRs and checked against schemas, coming to
agreement on most; some input back to NDR regarding some things
to be revisited in 1.1, such revisit to be done in the entire
TC. Next steps are to complete the AIs and the investigation,
then do the round-tripping test. So most of the meeting was
spent on alignment between spreadsheets, schemas, and NDRs --
haven't changed anything yet. David's presence was very
productive. The SSC will produce a report with reasons for
changes. None are due to limitations in EF, all are due to
limitations in the spreadsheet format.
JB to schedule a TC discussion of the SSC report for the first
meeting after the F2F.
1.01 CD
JB: We know of at least one schema error that needs to be
fixed.
Agreed that we should publish a UBL 1.01 CD containing this and
other corrections.
JB to put the question of what needs to be fixed on the TC
agenda soon.
TENTATIVE 2005 WORK SCHEDULE
Agreed that we will adopt the schedule arrived at Monday
afternoon with the addition of a couple of deadlines that
surfaced in later discussion:
01 Jan 2005 Completion of 1.0 translations
01 Mar 2005 Completion of 1.1 additions already on the work list
15 Apr 2005 Cutoff for any major additions to 1.1 submitted in our
format and accompanied by whatever resources are
needed to accomplish the work; cutoff for any
changes to the UBL 1.1 NDRs; cutoff for any changes
to the UBL 1.1 code list spec
15 Jun 2005 Public review No. 1 (data model only)
15 Jul 2005 Comment disposition
15 Aug 2005 Public review No. 2 (entire 1.1 package)
15 Sep 2005 Comment disposition
15 Oct 2005 1.1 CD vote begins
01 Nov 2005 CD approved by start of UBL TC meeting
WEEKLY TC CALLS
Agreed: We will mark the return to standard time from daylight
time by moving the UTC for the Atlantic call one hour forward
(thus keeping our usual start and end times in San Francisco,
Washington, and London) but keeping the UTC for the Pacific
call the same (thus keeping our usual times in Hong Kong,
Singapore, Beijing, Perth, Seoul, and Tokyo while moving San
Francisco and Washington one hour earlier).
FEBRUARY TC MEETING
We need to carve out time for a U.S. East Coast meeting
(probably in Washington) between this November meeting and the
next one in April or May 2005.
Conflicts:
02/07-02/11 MarkC out
02/14-02/18 MavisC out
02/21-02/25 MavisC out
02/28-03/04 W3C plenary
03/07-03/11 TC154; TBG17, London
03/14-03/18 UN/CEFACT, Kuala Lumpur
03/21-03/25 JB out
[easter is 27 March]
03/38-04/01 AH out
[We missed my conflict the week of 3/22 and so decided to
recommend that week to the TC, but I can't make it. So this
needs further discussion.]
APRIL TC MEETING
We will probably move the April TC meeting in Beijing out to
May, returning us in effect to a quarterly schedule. JB can't
go to Beijing. If MarkC doesn't get approval to go, we're
thinking that TM could chair.
NDR 1.1 EDITORIAL TEAM
Agreed: MarkC continues as lead editor with MavisC and MG as
subeditors (Mark continues to own the document, but all have
access to the editable file). They are assisted by as many
other members of the TC as wish to join them.
CODE LISTS
Agreed: Changes to NDR 1.1 and the Code List spec must be
finished by April 15 because they are on the critical path for
EF.
JB to forward Marty Burns's message to the TC.
With regard to Marty's point 4 (circulate a request for issues,
etc.), we suggest that this be changed to "validate existing
code list requirements". We don't think it's necessary to have
a separate list of requirements for each code list, or if so,
what code lists MB has in mind beyond the set in UBL 1.0.
Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]