[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of the McLean UBL TC meeting, 2005.01.31-02.04
################################################################## MINUTES OF THE MCLEAN UBL TC MEETING 31 JANUARY - 4 FEBRUARY 2005 ################################################################## 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 mainly spent working on NDR issues. 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 McLean. 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] Marty Burns [M] Mavis Cournane [M-Th] Mark Crawford (vice chair) [M-Th] Michael Dill [W-F] Scott Edson [T-F] Jessica Glace [M-F] Mike Grimley [MTuThF] Betty Harvey [Th] Anne Hendry [M-F] Sue Probert [Tu-F] Ken Sall [Tu-Th] Paul Thorpe [M-Th] By phone: Mikkel Brun [Tu] Marty Burns [Tu] Sally Chan [M] Stephen Green [MWTh] Tim McGrath [TuTh] Marion Royal [WF] Sylvia Webb [MTu] Unidentified Lurker [Th] ################################################################## MONDAY MORNING (OPENING) PLENARY 31 JANUARY 2005 ################################################################## HISC REPORT The SC needs wider participation for conference calls but appears to be making progress by mail. SSC REPORT (Anne Hendry) SSC spent most of the quarter identifying schema tool issues and trying to resolve them. The process of aligning 1.0 schemas and spreadsheets to provide the basis for future schema generation is now complete. The SC must still document the differences between the 1.0 schemas and the tool. Regarding the user FAQ, the SSC has captured questions and answers but still needs to organize this material. NDR TEAM REPORT (Mavis Cournane) The team has taken a second pass at the issues list and categorized them. The most critical are those holding up EDIFIX [EF] work; these will be dealt with first. CODE LIST TEAM REPORT (Marty Burns) The requirements doc has been sent out again with the requirements further elaborated to make them easier to understand and a request for ratings of relative importance. Nothing has been received yet. ATG LIAISON REPORT (Mark Crawford) ATG met face to face in Wollongong. ATG2 has approved its NDRs and submitted them to the ATG for approval, expected today. The NDRs include updated CCTS modules, largely based on input from OAG. There is a new qualified datatype module with a number of qualified DTs derived from XSD rather than from the unqualified DTs; these are being submitted to CCTS as candidates for additional representation terms. On behalf of ATG2 to UBL: please look at the implementation verification schemas. ATG2 believes that it has accommodated most of the UBL issues. There are still differences, the most important being (1) the base types and type definitions and (2) the fact the the ATG2 modules are not imported, just referenced. If there is any reason that UBL can't adopt the proposed schema modules in UBL 2.0, ATG2 needs to know that now. MartyB: What is the difference between the ATG, UBL, and Department of the Navy (DON) NDRs? MarkC/MikeG: All three are implementations of ebXML Core Components (ISO 15000-5) with the UBL NDRs as the source for the other two. The DON version combines CBC and CAC into a single schema module and features a more robust namespace approach with two categories, Enterprise and Developmental; "Enterprise" mimics the UBL namespaces. In UBL, we are building a single standard and aren't yet trying to support multiple lines of business in the library, whereas the DON has about two dozen namespace coordinators aligned with different functional areas, so the scope is much larger. ATG follows the same basic approach as UBL but (like DON) combines CBC and CAC; the big difference between ATG and UBL lies in the approach to local element declaration. MarkC: The UN/CEFACT CC library was released last week. The registry is in progress but has not been built yet. A major work item for UBL will be alignment with the emerging TBG17 CC library. JonB: The tasks are to (a) review our names, (b) review our content models, and (c) identify any CCs missing from the approved library. If CCs are missing, or the TBG17 content needs expansion, we will need to petition them to add CCs or more content; if the names differ, changes will have to wait for UBL 2.0. Agreed: A UBL 1.1 work item is to submit our new BIEs as CCs; for any new BIEs created in 1.1, we should either identify the underlying CC from the approved list or submit a candidate CC. CALENDAR REVIEW MoU/MG meeting: JonB to ask whether a phone presentation would be sufficient. Add Open Standards Day in Moscow 26 April; MarkC has submitted a paper. Hangzhou: TimM and MavisC are planning to meet in Shanghai and travel together to Hangzhou by train; others are invited to join them. MikeG and AnneH are trying for approval. JonB to canvass the ubl list for commitments [this will happen after the lunar new year holiday is over]. The CEFACT plenary is the week of 20 June (not May), probably in Geneva. The ATG interim meeting will be 27 June through 1 July in Oslo. Adobe has confirmed hosting for the UBL TC meeting in Ottawa 8-12 August 2005. CCTS will meet 21-25 February in McLean to kick off the next version (CCTS 3.0). Agreed: We will hold the TC meeting formerly scheduled for the beginning of November in Santa Clara the week of 5 December 2005 instead. The remaining X12 meetings for this year are 5-10 June in San Diego and 25-30 September in Atlanta; SylviaW will attend. ################################################################## MONDAY AFTERNOON PLENARY 31 JANUARY 2005 ################################################################## 2005 WORK SCHEDULE This discussion merged the UBL 1.1 schedule arrived at in Santa Clara with the UBL 1.0 data dictionary schedule recorded in the minutes of the 25 January Pacific TC call and adjusted the latter half of the time line to include the shift of the November UBL TC meeting to December (see minutes of the Monday morning session above). A few details added during the closing plenary Friday morning are included here for convenience. Agreed: REVISED 2005 WORK SCHEDULE 01 Jan 2005 Completion of 1.0 translations 14 Feb 2005 Begin public debate on use of substitution groups for codelist extension 23 Feb 2005 UBL TC completes NDR review and specification of schema layout 24 Feb 2005 UBL SSC issues list of proposed non-codelist changes to be made to the schema generator 28 Feb 2005 End public debate on substitution groups 02 Mar 2005 UBL TC signs off on proposed (non-codelist) schema generator changes, sends list to GEFEG for implementation 31 Mar 2005 GEFEG completes approved NDR and possible code list modifications to EDIFIX 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 previously unforeseen changes to the UBL 1.1 NDRs; cutoff for any changes to the UBL 1.1 codelist spec, including the outcome of the current codelist work 01 May 2005 Comments close on the Multilingual Data Dictonary (MLDD) for UBL 1.0, including possible (but not likely) suggested modifications to the English data definitions; this must be properly collated for work in Hangzhou 09 May 2005 All-week UBL TC meeting in Hangzhou hosted by the Chinese National Institute of Standards: work on content additions to UBL 1.1; review NDR 1.1 and CL 1.1; last MLDD 1.0 changes; consideration of possible suggested changes to the English 1.1 definitions 01 Jun 2005 GEFEG implements final changes to schema generator 15 Jun 2005 Begin Public Review Number 1 (data model only) (Summer vacations) 08 Aug 2005 All-week UBL TC meeting in Ottawa hosted by Adobe: Comment disposition, Review Number 1; begin final schema generation for Review Number 2 01 Sep 2005 Package assembly for Review Number 2 15 Sep 2005 Begin Public Review Number 2 (entire 1.1 package) 15 Oct 2005 Comment disposition and repackaging 15 Nov 2005 1.1 internal UBL CD vote begins 01 Dec 2005 CD approved by start of UBL TC meeting; begin OASIS one-month public review (etc.) CODE LISTS Note that this discussion continued Tuesday morning (see below). References are to the draft circulated by Marty Burns. 2.2.3 [R3] Data and Metadata model separate from Schema representation Agreed: We don't see the need to provide a recommended schema AND in addition a more abstract representation of our data model for code lists. If an abstraction is needed, it should be possible to construct it from the schema. If there are features not in the schema, the solution is to add the requisite features to the schema. 2.4.9 Ability to prevent extension or modification Agreed: This is a requirement that is already met by UBL's use of the "final" attribute. So this is not actually a future requirement. 2.5.2 [R20 (Future)] Multiple lists of equivalent values (codes) for a code list We don't think that the real req here is to support the normative definition of equivalent code values but rather the normative association of code values with metadata. We don't see a need to actually support codes used as equivalent keys. [See continuation Tuesday.] 2.5.8 [R26 (Future)] The ability to import, extend, and/or restrict values and elements of other code lists This needs further discussion [see continuation Tuesday]. Key questions: What are the alternative ways this could be done? How onerous are they? ################################################################## TUESDAY MORNING PLENARY 1 FEBRUARY 2005 ################################################################## CODE LISTS (CONT.) 2.5.2 [R20 (Future)] Multiple lists of equivalent values (codes) for a code list We can distinguish some different kinds of code lists: 1. Tabular, lots of metadata 2. International standard code list with version and agency, but user wants to use differently; e.g., currency codes, country codes 3. Like EDIFACT or X12 code lists; much more likely to be changed by code list users; e.g., type of document, or type of party sending a shipping container 4. User defined We observe that there is a difference between (a) a code list that has one set of keys and a lot of highly organized metadata and (b) a code list (such as the example in the draft) that has multiple keys, e.g. a currency code list in which the alpha and numeric forms are merged. Agreed: We accept the need to accommodate (a). With regard to (b), we suspect that multiple keys would be expensive to implement and not that interesting for small and medium-size enterprises; also, simple schema validation would become difficult or impossible. So we don't see that meeting this part of the proposed requirment would benefit the UBL target audience. 2.5.8 [R26 (Future)] The ability to import, extend, and/or restrict values and elements of other code lists Agreed: We will conduct a public discussion of the extension question on ubl-dev starting in mid-February and ending at the end of the month. JonB will moderate. For a summary of the discussion that occurred at this point in the meeting, see the message kicking off the ubl-dev debate: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200502/msg00006.html ################################################################## WEDNESDAY MORNING PLENARY 2 FEBRUARY 2005 ################################################################## UBL 1.0 ERRATA Known problems with the UBL 1.0 Standard: - Wrong content for a file in xsdrt - Extra space character The first problem appears to be due to some kind of installation error at OASIS, though we can't figure out how this could have happened; the UBL 1.0 zip file we submitted and the copy of that zip file at OASIS both have the correct content. JonB to contact OASIS to get this fixed. The second problem (the extra space char) brings up the larger question of how to handle such errata and exposes the fact that OASIS has no procedure for correcting obvious errors during the familiarization period leading up to an OASIS vote on standardization. Agreed: We recommend that OASIS implement a correction process modeled on common practice in international standards bodies such as ISO. For example, the standardization process could be modified to allow the OASIS Administrator to correct what in his or her judgement are obvious nonsubstantive clerical errors in candidate standards in the familiarization phase upon notification from the originating TC, with the assumption that the Administrator will then notify the OASIS membership of the change. Agreed: Given our belief that the extra space is not a problem in practice for conforming XML processors, we will address this particular erratum through an errata document, referenced via a jump table linked from the UBL TC page, that advises users to delete the extra space from their copies of the file UBL-CodeList-CountryIdentificationCode-1.0.xsd, notes that the error also exists in the corresponding spreadsheet, warns them that there may be an interoperability problem for nonconforming XML processors, and notes that this will be fixed in UBL 1.1, a notice to this effect to be posted to ubl-dev. Agreed: Ken Sall is appointed our errata maintainer. KenS to prepare an errata document for UBL 1.0 modeled after the one used for SAML, its first entry addressing the trailing space problem and based on mail from JonB to the ubl list Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:35:29 -0800 (PST). CUSTOMIZATION QUESTION Background: See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200501/msg00050.html Agreed: Mark to post this response to Juha's questions: | We've looked at your figure and think it's correct. | | > Case: I don't want to customize document schema, I just want to | > import my own namespaces to allow use of customized components via | > "xsi:type". | | You can either take this approach (which means that xsi:type | in the instances now points to your customized type, which | is defined in your customized CBC or CAC schema module) or | you can customize the document schema to reference the added | elements (with their own declared namespace prefix) from the | namespace you've imported. | | > Is it UBL compliant if.. | | We use the term "UBL compatible." | | > I just add those imports and change targetNamespace to my own? | | Yes, this is UBL compatible if you're using xsi:type in the | instance. | | > Or should I extend the UBL document schema to sustain the | > linkage? | | We think you're asking whether you should extend the UBL | library schemas (CAC and CBC modules); the answer to that is | No. Customizations should be done in your own industry | schema modules. The UBL imported schemas should be left | untouched. | | (By the way, if you created your own specialized data types, | you would have to create and maintain your own specialized | data type module. And that customized SDT module would have | to directly import at a minimum the UBL UDT module, and | might also, depending on the data type you are creating, | have to import the UBL SDT module.) ################################################################## WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON PLENARY 2 FEBRUARY 2005 ################################################################## SMALL BUSINESS SUBSET Agreed: OK to recommend SBS to Altova. We may also wish to recommend the UBL subset being developed by the JPLSC for use in Japan. JonB to convey this to Altova. JonB to see whether Adobe, Blast Radius (Paul Prescod), Topologi (Rick Jelliffe), and Tibco (Jason Scott) might also be interested. We discussed the place of SBS in the UBL work (all development so far has taken place in ubl-dev). Alternatives ranged from leaving it entirely alone to recommending the creation of a new OASIS TC. We concluded that we approve of the idea of officially recognized subsets and think that some kind of formal recognition is necessary in order to give the spec a persistent location, allow it to be referenced in trading partner agreements, and put it under the same royalty-free umbrella as the rest of UBL. Agreed: We will form a Small Business Subcommittee (SBSC) whose deliverables will be a set of XPaths, instance documents, and prose. StephenG and GKenH to work up a charter proposal for SBSC to be discussed in an upcoming Atlantic TC call. With regard to Altova's request for UBL namespaces to be used in their XML catalog, we believe that "all relevant UBL namespaces" means for all the schema modules, and "all URI pointers" means references to those modules. We note that we should revise the URLs for the UBL schemas to update the name (it shouldn't be "cd" any more) in line with the latest OASIS naming rules, change the internal references in line with this, and get the revised files copied to a new location. UBL TC to review the naming rules and determine what we should do here. Agreed: We have to keep the current URLs working regardless, so there's no harm in recommending that Altova use those in their catalog. ################################################################## THURSDAY MORNING PLENARY 3 FEBRUARY 2005 ################################################################## UBL AND UN/CEFACT JonB: At the November 2004 MoU/MG meeting, I reported to the MG that a group consisting of myself, Jean Kubler, Francois Vuilleumier, Sophie Clivio, Mark Palmer, Jean-Luc Champion, and Jamie Clark were considering a convergence of UBL, UNeDocs, and UNTDED to create a single CEFACT deliverable; that we needed to investigate the technical feasability of doing this before suggesting a concrete plan to the various groups involved; but in advance of that investigation, I felt quite optimistic about this idea as a direction forward. Jean-Luc added that there would be a new TBG group for this and that NDR would have to be split off into ATG. Jean Kubler added that this would be a document-centric approach and that UBL and eDocs share a similar approach. Francois added that TC 154 needed to identify the workload involved in the mapping of TDED to UBL CCs, first looking at the degree of correlation and then estimating the workload. Francois suggested starting with UBL but also keeping in touch with OAG and allowing OAG to comment and perhaps offer to help. SueP conveyed the invitation from UN/CEFACT FMG for UBL to join UN/CEFACT: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200502/msg00004.html JonB gave a summary of the history of UBL and UN/CEFACT and the relationship between UBL and UNeDocs. Agreed: We are in favor of moving UBL into a UN/CEFACT TBG with UNeDocs after the release of UBL 1.1 if appropriate conditions are met and stated in a public roadmap (MoU) agreed to by both OASIS and CEFACT. Agreed: A negotiating team consisting of JonB, MarkC, SueP, TimM, and MichaelD is empowered to work out a draft agreement with UN/CEFACT to be submitted to the TC for its approval, taking the previous round of negotiations with the former UN/CEFACT CSG as its starting point. This team expects to be corresponding offline with a UN/CEFACT team consisting of MarkC, SueP, MichaelD, Mike Doran, and Jean Kubler. Agreed: JonB to draft a response to the FMG and have it reviewed by the UBL negotiating team before sending it. A 72-hour response time is assumed for all discussions among members of the UBL team. The response will include a suggestion regarding NDR adoption. ################################################################## FRIDAY MORNING (CLOSING) PLENARY 4 FEBRUARY 2005 ################################################################## MarionR to talk to SueP about liaison with TBG17. NDR (MikeG): The group went through the comments and issues list, addressed all NDR-related comments, made appropriate changes to the NDR text and rules, and updated the issues list to reflect this. The NDR-related issues are completed. MavisC to issue a revised NDR issues list. UBL TC to review the NDRs in committee. UBL TC to decide on format and content of schema documentation. SSC (AnneH): The SSC members present participated in the NDR discussions. Still editing input about the issues list. JonB: The Thursday afternoon EDIFIX training session exposed some workflow issues; we should review these. We need EF licenses for JonB, AnneH, TimM, KenS, BettyH, and JessicaG. Agreed: TC and SSC not meeting next week, will resume the week after. SueP and MichaelD will probably not be able to attend the TC meeting in Hangzhou. The UBL TC thanks LMI Government Consulting for their kind hospitality and JessicaG in particular for her work in organizing our visit. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]