[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 23 February 2005
MINUTES OF THE ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING
16H00 - 18H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2005
ATTENDANCE
Jon Bosak (chair)
Stephen Green
Mike Grimley
Anne Hendry
Ken Sall
Ray Seddigh
Sylvia Webb
STANDING ITEMS
Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm)
None.
Liaison reports
None.
Subcommittee reports
HISC (StephenG): Things are progressing well by email.
Team reports
None.
MAY 2005 UBL TC MEETING
We need to find out who's coming so that our hosts can generate
appropriate invitation letters (needed to get a visa).
JonB to check planned attendance by email.
PROPOSED SMALL BUSINESS SC
We discussed the draft charter at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200502/msg00024.html
and agreed to the following changes:
- "Subsets" should be singular; while its work may provide
guidelines for similar efforts, the SBSC should have as its
primary task the definition of one particular subset, the
one for small businesses. Therefore "a formal subset"
should be substituted for "formal subsets" in item 2 and
"this subset" for "these subsets" in item 3.
- Under Deliverables, the discovery of general principles in
deliverable 1 should be broken out as a separate deliverable
4, and "the small business subset" should replace "such a
subset" in deliverables 2 and 3 to make it clear that the
primary work item of the SBSC is the (single) SBS.
- Under Scope, instead of "an identifiable community of
business users" in the second para there should be an actual
identification; for example, replace "candidate users" with
"small business users."
- Under Manner and Schedule of Work, third para, "new UBL
document models" should replace "new document models from
other UBL subcommittees" and "input from the user community"
should replace "with the responsiveness of the user
community regarding feedback the subcommittee may receive."
- The fourth para under Manner and Schedule of work should be
eliminated.
- The material under Technical Liaison should be reworked into
a statement of what the SC will actually be doing in this
regard and put up at the beginning.
StephenG and KenH to submit a revised charter for consideration
in next week's Atlantic TC call.
Agreed: The SBS will be released as a separate deliverable some
time after release of the UBL CD that it subsets (just as with
translations).
SylviaW and StephenG to meet offline and discuss the thought
that EF might be used to generate the subset.
Agreed: User documentation in the SBS must define the criteria
of applicability from the user's point of view and explain the
relationship of the SBS to UBL itself.
NDR WORK SESSION
JonB substituted for MavisC, who is out sick this week.
We had this action item from last week:
MarkC to make editorial fixes, then send the version with
tracking to the ubl list ("this is what we're going to start
using for schema generation going forward") and give the TC
three weeks to review (aim to have the document out next
Monday with a review deadline of 14 March).
The document did go to Mark, but we haven't gotten the edited
version back yet. The SSC can do some of its work without
seeing the detailed NDR changes, but not all of it, so we need
to work around this to avoid a delay in the schedule. The
plan, decided on at the end of the meeting, is as follows:
SylviaW to request MikeG to send the NDR document to StephenG
so that he can forward it to the SSC.
StephenG to use this and the decisions arrived at below
regarding GXS1 to prepare a list of changes to the schema
generator for review by the SSC.
GXS1 REVIEW
The passages below are taken from AnneH's proposals at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200502/msg00023.html
| OASIS Open (http://www.oasis-open.org/)
| Universal Business Language Specification
| (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ubl)
| Document Name: <insert document name w/o suffix>
| Generated On: <insert date with timestamp>
|
| and they should be clearly separated from the copyright notice.
| (insert single line between?)
Agreed: These should be added to GXS1 (this was discussed in
McLean). A single dashed line should be used as the separator.
| Keep this part of the rule.
| Schemas need to be updated to include this comment line.
Agreed (change the schemas to conform to the rule).
| Schemas currently don't conform to this order. Order needs
| review for technical issues, but otherwise is fine as in rule.
| Schemas need to be updated to conform to this order (unless
| technical reason for altering the order).
Agreed (change the schemas to conform to the rule).
| Not all schemas need to include all these declarations, so as
| long as we agree that the words 'as applicable', which are in
| the opening sentence of the rule, means these can be present or
| not present, as needed, as long as they are in this order, then
| we are ok with this.
Agreed. This must be clearly understood.
| >> <!-- ===== Imports ===== -->
|
| Schemas do not have this comment line.
| Add this to schemas (unless there are no imports).
Agreed; appearance covered by "as applicable" (and this applies
to several other cases below).
| >> CommonAggregateComponents schema module
| >> CommonBasicComponents schema module
| >> Unspecialized Types schema module
| >> Specialized Types schema module
|
| Schemas don't currently conform to this order.
| Change schemas to conform to this order unless
| technically problematic or non-standard.
Agreed (change the schemas to conform to the rule).
| Rule is missing other import possibilities:
| - any codelist schemas
| - cc parameters schema
| Add these to the rule.
The schemas actually do this, but it's not covered by the rule.
Proposal for discussion next week: Add to the rule that
specialized is followed by code list and then CC parameters.
| >> <!-- ===== Global Attributes ===== -->
| >> Global Attributes and Attribute Groups
|
| Leave rule.
|
| Add global attribute or attribute groups here, *** [in the schamas]
| and add comment section separator when they are present.
Agreed (change the schemas to conform to the rule).
| >> <!-- ===== Root Element ===== -->
| >> Root Element Declaration
| >> Root Element Type Definition
|
| Leave rule.
| This is how it is now in schemas,
| but schemas need to add comment section separator.
Agreed.
| >> <!-- ===== Element Declarations ===== -->
| >> alphabetized order
|
| Leave rule.
| This is how it is now in schemas,
| but schemas need to add comment section separator.
Agreed.
| Also there was some discussion a while back on how
| to handle the capitalization of the second word in
| terms of how that should be alphabetized. Was there
| a conclusion on this?
Proposal for discussion next week: In alphabetizing, ignore case
(i.e., fold case), and ignore the xsd-related suffix "type" when
it's there purely for xsd reasons.
| >> <!-- ===== Type Definitions ===== -->
| >> All type definitions segregated by basic and aggregates as follows
|
| Schemas should add comment section separator.
Agreed.
| >> <!-- ===== Aggregate Business Information Entity Type Definitions ===== -->
| >> alphabetized order of ccts:AggregateBusinessInformationEntity
| >> xsd:TypeDefinitions
|
|
| Schemas should include comment section separator if section has
| content. Rule should remove ":" from after ccts and xsd, as
| that syntax has no meaning here.
Agreed.
| >> <!-- =====Basic Business Information Entity Type Definitions ===== -->
| >> alphabetized order of ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntities
|
| Schemas should include comment section separator if section has
| content. Rule should remove ":" from after ccts and xsd, as
| that syntax has no meaning here.
Agreed.
| This section of the rule should mention ASBIEs also.
MikeG: ASBIEs don't have their own type, so this should not be
under the type definitions.
Agreed: No change (leave this alone).
| >> <!-- ===== Copyright Notice ===== -->
| >> Required OASIS full copyright notice.
|
| Remove above two lines from rule.
| Full copyright is now at the top of the schemas.
Agreed: The copyright should go at the top of the schema (as
with all code), not at the bottom.
| Overall comment: this rule only seems to consider the document
| schemas, not the code list nor common schemas. Need to decide
| whether to add a rule for those or not, since it will be hard
| to create one rule for all three types of schemas (document,
| common, codelist).
MikeG: Disagree. What needs to be different for common
schemas? Most won't be applicable, but everything that is in
common is addressed.
AnneH: OK, pending possible changes to code list schemas; and
we need to review the parameter schema to make sure the rule
applies.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UBL RELEASES AND UBL NDR
From today's agenda:
We also need to address a question from the SSC regarding
the relationship between UBL 1.0, UBL 1.1, and the UBL 1.1
NDRs; in particular, will the UBL 1.1 NDRs be
backward-compatible with the UBL 1.0 schemas? (I believe
that the answer should be: UBL 1.1 NDR is released
simultaneously with UBL 1.1, and the only
backward-compatibility guarantee is that UBL 1.0 *instances*
will validate against UBL 1.1 schemas. But if we're in
agreement on this, we need to document it.)
Agreed: This is indeed the definition of UBL 1.1 backward
compatibility. There is no other compatibility limitation on
UBL 1.1.
Agreed: We should issue the UBL 1.1 NDRs with UBL 1.1.
Agreed: It would be helpful to provide a diff between 1.1 and
1.0 NDRs; the changes logged from the meeting in McLean could
serve as the basis for this.
Jon
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]