[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]