UBL master data for maintenance

As far as I remember, we have at least twice picked up about 200 technical errors from these UBL spreadsheets. And everybody knows that the formulas of the spreadsheets in order to build a Dictionary Entry Name did not work correctly. We even have the case that the spreadsheets have a) redundant data and b) data on the wrong place, just in order to meet the requirements of formulas, whereas it should be just the other way round. We now know that handcrafting is simply not capable of producing quality results for huge amounts of data.

Therefore, if we know that a given procedure produces errors, then the procedure has to be changed.

After reading the UBL call minutes, I understand that the current decision is to view spreadsheets as the maintenance master data of UBL. This means necessarily that UBL plans to produce further errors in the future too. I would like to ask for which reasons the earlier decision to use Edifix as the master has been overturned?

I think, our (GEFEGs) history of contribution A) in developing functionality to produce more and more complex UBL schemas, B) in supporting the NDR development by running an implementation verification and C) in delivering a QA instrument by reading/producing SS is quite a lot for the volunteer work of a small team.

As I strongly believe that nobody wants me to do unnecessary work by correcting errors, which are in fact avoidable, I'd like to put on the agenda for one of the next calls, the question of how UBL intends to deal with the necessary QA to remove the handcrafted errors each time the 'master' . SSs need to be reimported into the edifix tool (EF). In particular, who is going to do this work which consists of importing into EF, going through laboriously correcting all the reported errors and exporting again and which may require, on previous experience, more than one iteration.

BTW: if UBL was to be really serious about production quality, we should need to check through two tools in order to have enough possibilities of double checking the resultant schemas. This has always been the best implementation verification.

Once Tim said to me, that he was astonished that he has not yet seen me become as frustrated as Gunther and then Chi-Kai were. However, it seems that frustration is again being introduced - is this intentional?

Best regards,

Michael Dill

GEFEG mbH

ubl message