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: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 24|25 January 2005

00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2005


   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Jessica Glace
   Tim McGrath
   Yukinori Saito
   Sylvia Webb


   The first part of the meeting was devoted to a review of the
   draft multilingual UBL data dictionary at


   Saito-san: We already have a translation for Japanese people;
   what is the purpose of a multilingual data dictionary [MLDD]?

   JonB: First, it allows the definitions to be used by people
   working to implement trade between partners fluent in two of
   the translation targets but not English, for example, between
   Japanese and Chinese trading partners.  Second, putting all the
   translations into a single deliverable forces resolution of
   certain decisions implicit in the versions created by the
   different localization subcommittees, for example, ordering the
   document types by their likely use (as done by the JPLSC)
   rather than alphabetically (as done by the other LSCs).  Third,
   it improves Q/A by keying all of the translations to identical
   English definitions and identical metadata; from here on, we
   can make all revisions to this single source rather than trying
   to keep multiple translations in sync.  Fourth, running the
   whole MLDD through the CD process and the public review will
   encourage input from groups that have not felt required to
   review the translations yet.  And finally, this single source
   is necessary in order to refer to both the original definition
   and the translated definition by a single generated Published
   Subject Identifier (PSI), which is an OASIS specification we
   are trying to incorporate into this work.  Note that you can
   always hide the columns that are not of interest to a
   particular set of users.

   Saito-san: What parts of the MLDD are normative?

   JonB: Only the parts that were normative in UBL 1.0; the rest
   (including all of the translated definitions) is just user
   documentation at this point.  I hope that in future releases we
   can move the translations toward normative status as well, but
   that will require the input of business and legal experts in
   each region and perhaps even the cross-border normalization of
   business processes themselves.

   TimM: OK with moving the MLDD to CD; was imagining that we will
   include a 1.1 version when we publish the UBL 1.1 spec.

   JonB: That's certainly worth trying, but it assumes that we can
   keep all of the translation teams active through 1.1.  Also,
   translations should always lag behind release of the English
   version, because the translators should not begin work till the
   source document is actually published.  Witness the problems
   we're having right now that resulted from beginning the 1.0
   translation work with 1.0 Beta instead of waiting for
   publication of the 1.0 Standard.

   TimM: What is the time line for the MLDD?

   JonB: Something like this:

      2005.02.15: Pick this up again in the Pacific TC call,
      hoping that the missing Korean revisions are in by then;
      begin HTML transformation and PSI generation

      2005.03.15: Try to sign off on a complete CD candidate
      (noting the missing Korean corrections as "known issues" if

      2005.03.21: Begin CD balloting

      2005.03.28: End CD balloting

      April 2005: Public review of the MLDD CD

      May 2005: Resolve comments received during review, using the
      Hangzhou UBL TC meeting to work on this

      June 2005: Reballot the CD and release it as a CD

   JonB: I expect two kinds of comments resulting from the
   one-month public review: comments regarding the translations,
   which should be disposed of in MLDD 1.0; and comments regarding
   the original English definitions, which should become work
   items for UBL 1.1.  Our schedule for UBL 1.1 forecasts delivery
   of the CD by November 2005; translation for MLDD 1.1 should
   begin then, so allowing for public reviews and so on, this
   would put delivery of the final MLDD 1.1 CD at mid-2006.

   Agreed that this appears to be a reasonable schedule.

   Saito-san: The JPLSC will be meeting this week in Tokyo.  We
   will discuss this activity and send conclusions and proposals.

   With regard to UBL representation at the ebXML Asia Committee
   in February, TimM will be talking to Thomas Lee soon and will
   confirm that he can represent UBL there.


   Saito-san: The JPLSC has two topics to discuss.  First, as
   reported in email 5 January 2005, the JPLSC has translated the
   UDT and SDT spreadsheets and conveyed some questions and
   comments arising from this; we want to see these registered in
   the issues list.

   JonB and TimM: The comments relating to ebXML CCTS fall outside
   our purview and should be submitted into the UN/CEFACT CCTS
   schema review currently underway.  The two points relating to
   SDTs (comment #2, "Specialized Data Types" in the document
   dated 5 January) do relate to the UBL content work and should
   be logged in the content issues list.

   Action: BettyH to add the two issues under #2 in the 5 January
   message from Saito-san to the content issues list.

   Saito-san: The second topic relates to the promotion of UBL in
   Japan.  Japan is in the process of transition from the
   traditional Japanese EDI system, EIJA, to the next generation
   XML-based system, ECALGA, which will become the major business
   document standard for Japan.  We have done a mapping of ECALGA
   to UBL and developed a subset of UBL for the Japanese
   marketplace.  Our "Mapping Study of Major Business Documents to
   UBL" contains a twelve-page report in English translated from
   the Japanese.  In the process of preparing this study, we have
   identified a number of BIEs that we propose should be added to
   UBL.  We would like to submit these proposals to the UBL TC in
   two to three weeks.

   JonB: This comes at a perfect time for us.  We will be looking
   for the JPLSC proposals and working on them in the content
   sessions of the Pacific TC calls.


   Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm)

      SylviaW: Will be attending the X12 meeting 6-11 February

      TimM: Add OASIS Open Standards conference in Sydney 26-28
      October 2005.

      Agreed that TimM should represent UBL at this conference.

   Liaison reports

      SylviaW: There are several OASIS TCs looking at UBL: Legal,
      Human Markup, International Health Continuum.

      Agreed that Sylvia should keep a lookout for possible
      liaisons to the UBL TC.  We are hopeful that Scott Edson
      from Legal can attend our F2F next week.

   Subcommittee reports

      SSC: Sylvia: No SSC meeting this week due to email problems.

   Team reports



   "Template instances" for Altova

      We note that work continues in xml-dev on the Small Business
      Subset (formerly UBL Lite).

      Saito-san: The subset defined by the mapping of ECALGA to
      UBL constitutes a similar profile for Japanese SME
      manufacturing industries.

      JonB: So we will actually have two somewhat different
      subsets for Altova; this is great.

      TimM: Will the subset allow lossless mapping of ECALGA to

      Saito-san: Yes, with the addition of the important new BIEs
      that we will be sending in a few weeks.

   Additional BIE proposals from StephenG

      Action: BettyH to log these in our content issues list (see
      StephenG's message of 24 January).

      TimM to contact Valoris/OGC to kickoff European input to UBL


   BaseAmount: Agreed to add a new BBIE to the AllowanceCharge
   structure called BaseAmount with representation term Amount and
   cardinality 0..1 (so only one max per AllowanceCharge).

   TaxCurrencyTaxAmount: This appears to be a context-dependent
   requirement; we need to understand whether this requirement
   exists in other regions.  Action: keep on the issues list and
   revisit after we have received expected input from Europe (IDA)
   and Japan.  We should also request input from the Tax XML TC.

   RoundoffAmount: We discussed this briefly a few weeks ago and
   didn't see sufficient justification.  We note, however, that
   X12 has this in the summary section of the financial
   transactions; it may be a legacy requirement that we can't
   avoid.  Action: SylviaW to see whether this ended up as a
   requirement in X12 XML.  Action: Keep on the list of proposed
   additions and revisit when we have seen other proposals (if
   someone else comes up with this requirement, we will consider
   it again).

   PayeePartyName: within PartyMeans: the owner of an invoice
   transfers ownership to another institution, e.g. bank or debt
   collector.  We observe that something like this is fairly
   common in retail (factoring) and the mortgage industry.
   Action: TimM to ask the originating group whether this
   requirement can be met using the existing
   PayeeFinancialAccountName element.


   The next Pacific TC meeting will take place 15 February (14
   February in NA).  In the meantime, we need a revised issues
   list from BettyH; we should try to find time for this at the
   F2F next week.

Jon Bosak

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