[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 4|5 April 2005
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 5 APRIL 2005 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Micah Dubinko Stephen Green Anne Hendry Tim McGrath Yukinori Saito Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm) None. Liaison report: Tax XML TC SylviaW: The Tax XML TC has performed an initial gap analysis of UBL against taxation requirements to allow questions or comments before the final version is prepared; see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200504/msg00006.html Liaison report: MoU/MG JonB: Presented the usual semiannual UBL status report to the MoU/MG meeting in Brussels this morning (Monday). Pointed to possible multiplicity of UN/CEFACT-endorsed document-centric XML schemas as a major issue. Subcommittee report: SSC StephenG: Last week's meeting resulted in the spreadsheet sent 4 April: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200504/msg00003.html Also, the SSC agreed that if there are no new rules for code lists in UBL 1.1, we will default to redefining every code list (producing a new schema for each code list). Subcommittee report: HISC MicahD: Will have things to report after the meeting tomorrow. Subcommittee report: SBSC StephenG: TimM has added edits to index.htm; KenH needs to add OASIS notices, and we plan to reissue the SBS after that. JonB: After which we will send it out for review as noted last week. Team report: European input TimM: The group has not met by phone for two weeks, but work is proceeding well by mail. They have achieved consensus on a common business process model and are now converging on a single approach to harmonizing the gap analyses between their joint requirements and UBL. IDA and OGC are meeting 4/7 in Paris to review the joint gap analysis. The agreement to a common approach for the gap analysis is a real breakthrough. It's also notable that the group has been joined by a representative of the Norwegian government. JonB: Reported on this effort to the MoU/MG as part of the UBL update. Team report: COML TimM: Had been expecting feedback from Crimson Logic or SueP but haven't heard anything. ACTION: TimM to follow up with Kama. CONTENT WORK SESSION TimM: The agenda item "We will continue the discussion of ECALGA requirements and then proceed to consideration of the revised process model" indicates that JonB was looking at the wrong set of minutes. In the 3/22 Pacific call, we concluded our discussion of ECALGA requirements and discussed the process model. As noted in the minutes of that meeting, the issue that concerns us now is the resources that will be required to process all the input we're about to get. We're basically doubling the requirements for 1.1 over 1.0. We've made it clear all along that these requests have to be accompanied by resources, but now we need to formalize this. ACTION: TimM to schedule this for discussion with the European Input group Friday. AGREED that we will proceed using the IDA/OGC process model as a basis and turn to implementation of the content changes/additions requested by IDA/OGC and the Tax XML SC along with work already in progress on the requests from JPLSC and the Swedish Association of Local Governments. AGREED that this work is worth doing even though it will require additional resources and may affect our schedule. JonB: This makes me wonder whether we should call what we're going to produce "UBL 2.0" rather than "UBL 1.1." Doubling the size and scope of the spec looks like a major revision to me. AnneH: But then we have to process some backward-incompatible changes that we've been putting off to UBL 2.0. SylviaW: We could release a 2.0 to accommodate the new content and then address the backward-incompatible changes in a following major release. JonB: The fact that a major release is allowed to be incompatible with the previous ones doesn't mean that it has to be, and possibly this could solve the problems we've been having with schema generation under our NDRs for minor revisions. Let's talk about this some more in the Atlantic call. OTHER BUSINESS TimM: We need to revise the issues list. JonB: BettyH has suffered a death in her family and sends her regrets. She will be back next week. SylviaW: We've seen a request from Constantine Wasco regarding support for transport applications: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200504/msg00001.html The items that Constantine is requesting are in common use. AnneH: Why aren't they already in the documents? TimM: We have these vaguely in TransportContract; Constantine is suggesting that we be more specific. As with the ECALGA requests, this is not a radical departure. In fact, the Certificate of Origin additions are a superset of these requirements, so what Constantine is requesting is not an extension of scope over what's already in progress. AGREED: We need more details. The JPLSC request from 19 March can serve as an example of what we need: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200503/doc00001.doc SylviaW: The xCBL messaging services are beyond our scope; this should be in the ebMS wrapper. ACTION: TimM to post a response on the xml-dev list. SylviaW: xCBL is not being revised. Aerospace needs to decide what to do about that. JonB: Please let us know if there is anything we can help them with in making this decision. SylviaW: SSC still needs a set of prototype spreadsheets to work with. ACTION: TimM to provide prototype spreadsheets to SSC. Saito-san: Need the agenda for the meeting in Hangzhou. ACTION: JonB to provide the agenda and other meeting information by the end of this week. NEXT WEEK TimM: We should put the Tax XML analysis on next week's agenda. ACTION: Content team to review the gap analysis (URL above). Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]