The minutes show that the F2F was a great and successful one!
This will resolve the current inconsistency issue raised by NDR where we
have some BBIEs in documents and not in the Common Basic Components. For
Tim,
does this means, that there is a chance to get ride of the stand alone BBIE
directly under the document root? They are some times redundant, what should
never happen in a proper model.
This would be great and would remove one of the barriers to vote positive
for UBL 2.x
thanks
Michael
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Mai 2005 13:04
An: UBL TC
Betreff: [ubl] PLENARY REPORT FROM THE UBL TC MEETING IN HANGZHOU 9 MAY
- 13 MAY 2005
==========================================================
PLENARY REPORT FROM THE UBL TC MEETING IN HANGZHOU 9 MAY - 13 MAY 2005
==========================================================
MEETING LOGISTICS
Hangzhou Huagang HNA Resort,
No.1 Yanggongti, West Lake District,
Hangzhou, 310007, P.R.China
PARTICIPANTS
Tim McGrath(chair)
Mavis Cournane
Anne Hendry
Thomas Lee
Yukinori Saito
Sung Hyuk Kim
Peter Larsen Borresen
Mikkel Hippe Brun
Colin Lam
Sun Ho Kim
Sun Wenfeng
Stephen Green (teleconference Wednesday)
Jon Bosak (teleconference Monday)
OUTCOMES
The UBL Technical Committee greatly appreciate the support of the
Chinese National Institute of Standards and in particular Mr Lu Bisong
who organized this meeting in Hangzhou.
The meeting facilities and the personal contributions of CNIS member,
Sun Wenfeng were exceptional. Those in attendance agreed this has been
one of the most productive and enjoyable UBL meetings to date.
The primary objectives of this meeting were:
- Hear reports from localization subcommittees and liaisons
- Review UBL 2.0 requirements and schedule
- Work of development of content models for UBL 2.00
- Discuss deployment strategies for UBL in the Asia Pacific region.
- Review of comments received regarding the UBL 1.0 International Data
Dictionary (IDD) CD
- Discussion of possible UBL transition to UN/CEFACT
1. Hear reports from localization subcommittees and liaisons
CNLSC:The Digital Trade and Transportation network in HK intends to
submit their document models to UBL. UBL components, types and NDR have
been used but not all the UBL 1.0 Library Content. DTTN is government
subsidized. The UBL approach is recommended by the DTTN in HK.
KRLSC:KRLSC is now discussing financial support with KIEC. KIEC wants to
accept KRLSC as one of the working groups for the e-document
standardization. The support of KIEC wold have a positive affect on the
localization of UBL.The government supported E Commerce Internet
forum(ECIF) will receive the draft of the Korean localization effort.
There are also guidelines for UBL applications written in Korean.
This should be announced on the UBL website.
JPLSC: Has reviewed the mapping study between major Japanese business
documents and UBL.
The translation of the UBL data types was confirmed by a 90% match on
essential BIEs.
The significance of the ECALGA project in Japan is huge.
Proposed Danish LSC: Danish adoption of UBL Invoice has been successful.
Next steps will be to ask UBL to have a Danish Localisation
Subcommittee(European). Implementation of UBL order will be done by fall
of 2006. A meeting is planned on May 18th to initiate a European forum
(perhaps a European LSC). Attendees from Norway, Sweden, and Britain are
expected.
ESLSC: Have built software libraries for UBL in Spain. 200 Companies are
using the UBL libraries to generate the invoices. Between now and June
they will be going live with 10 companies sending real invoices.
In South America there is an Ecuadorean working group. There is a 10
month plan to define the UBL data needs, the pilot project and the
dissemination plan.
2. Review UBL 2.0 requirements and schedule
Proposed major changes from UBL 1.0 to 2.0:
* Restructuring of the spreadsheet and schema architecture.
* Adding new documents so a extended procurement and certificate of
origin application business process supported.
* Adding more Party-types.
* Buyer to buyer information applied.
* Person-type added.
* Incorporated legal requirements for Japan and the EU
* Support of prepayment/recurring payment
* Document references in all document types.
* Enhancement based on localization requirements.
* Better support for customisation.
The following are comments on the proposed UBL 2.0 extended business
process model for procurement.
Proposed Sourcing Collaboration
We need a better document name than catalogue as this has caused some
confusion.The most common use case is for a seller to send off a
catalogue to various market places. He could send it to a buyer but that
would be rarer.
The catalogue part of the process should not be emphasised, and should
not be an integral part of the process. The request for quotation and
the quotation are an independent and important part of the process. The
catalogue question is important between the seller and the marketplace
but not between the seller and the buyer.The Danish government would be
interested in sponsoring the development of cataloguing document that
extends the current proposed process.
We should split this process model into two - one to show the sourcing
and the other would be quotation. Quotation would be a more interesting
to Japan.
Proposed Fulfillment Collaboration
Rectification advice is not a word that is a word that is recognizable.
A better word would be "Correction Advice". We suspect we could just
resend a corrected despatch advice (as we do with Order). We may have a
revised Receipt advice as well. Peter Borresen will investigate whether
a despatch advice can satisfy the information requirements of a
rectification advice.
Proposed Buyer Billing Collaboration
We need to know more about the information flow before a self bill
invoice is created, for example, how does the buyer understand what to
provide in the self bill invoice. Peter Borresen to investigate with IDA.
Proposed Seller Billing Collaboration
There is a document missing from the diagram - Account Response. This
needs to be redrawn.
Proposed Payment Collaboration
There is also a requirement for an acknowledgment at the business level.
Where an invoice is rejected a message is required to say so or else the
Seller does not know until he doesn't get paid. We will propose a
Invoice Rejection message. Mikkel Brun will design this.
It was agreed that for 2.0 we have to test that we can do a minor
release before any formal release to ensure that versioning mechanism
works. This should be done when we generate the sample instances. This
will be done by the Danish representatives.
Additionally, there will be an editorial team for the NDR document and
extra resources to help with NDR activities are requested. Mavis was
nominated as the editorial team leader to accomplish this.
Revised Schedule
17 May 2005 Content team meeting in the Pacific TC calls starts
processing input from European stakeholders and the
OASIS Tax XML TC
18 May 2005 NDR team meeting in the Atlantic TC calls starts
reviewing NDR issues in light of the decision to
make all elements global, then takes up code lists.
Restructure spreadsheet models (see above).
01 Jun 2005 Finalize requirements/issues list for 2.0
15 Jun 2005 TC agree requirements/issues list for 2.0
Begin updating spreadsheet models
Agree changes to the NDR
08 Jul 2005 Begin Public Review Number 1 (data model only)
Load spreadsheets into EDIFIX and test/revise until
synchronized
01 Jul 2005 GEFEG gets all the schema changes decided so far
(DavidK goes on vacation last two weeks of July)
08 Aug 2005 All-week UBL TC meeting in Ottawa hosted by Adobe:
Review of the spreadsheet and EDIFIX models.
Comment disposition, Review Number 1; begin final
schema generation for Review Number 2
01 Sep 2005 Package assembly for Review Number 2
Test that we can do a minor release
15 Sep 2005 Begin Public Review Number 2 (entire package)
15 Oct 2005 Comment disposition and repackaging
15 Nov 2005 2.0 internal UBL CD vote begins
01 Dec 2005 CD approved by start of UBL TC meeting;
begin OASIS one-month public review (etc.)
One of the key factors in whether we will meet the timetable is whether
we have the resources to do it. Since 1.0 there are less resources to do
it. Mikkel Brun emphasized that meeting these schedules was critical to
UBL's acceptance.
We also discussed the need for review at critical points in the process
in which TC wide participation is highly essential. TC review may need
to take place on joint calls.
To better facilitate work items, we propose to establish a third weekly
call slot (to suit Europe and Asia). Tim has offered to chair these
calls (if Jon approves).
3. Work of development of content models for UBL 2.00
For 2.0 we would like to change the structure of the spreadsheets. The
proposal is to have 3 three layers:
* the documents and any ABIEs only they use,
* common ABIEs (ie used more than once) within a context, and
* core ABIEs.
This will resolve the current inconsistency issue raised by NDR where we
have some BBIEs in documents and not in the Common Basic Components. For
example in the current CBC we have ReceivedHandlingUnitReceiptLine that
is not really a CAC becasue it is contextual. It was agreed that
"common"is not the same as "core".
NDR will need to redraw the schema diagram showing the CACs and CBC
schemas that implement this, and to provide some naming rules for these.
We will try to ensure semantic compatibility with 1.0 and we don't
intend to change the Data Dictionary (but we will add to it). There may
be clarifications or definition changes in the Dictionary.
COML: Crimson Logic have done a lot of the work that UBL will
incorporate into the UBL 2.0 Certificate of Origin document. Peter
Borresen and Thomas Lee will liaise with Crimson Logic on the
suitability for UBL of the model for digital signatures as provided by
the COML project. Tim will transfer these requirements onthe UBL 2.0
issues list.
IDA Issues: Peter Borresen and the European localization group will
transfer their requirements into the UBL issues list.
4. Discuss deployment strategies for UBL in the Asia Pacific region.
JPLSC will propose a pilot project with a view to seeing how
harmonization could happen between Japan and other economies.
The other LSC representatives said that they would need some commerical
funding to do this. Mikkel Brun will take this offer up with some Danish
companies.
5. Review of comments received regarding the UBL 1.0 International Data
Dictionary (IDD) CD
No comments were recevied so the dscussion moved onto leveraging the
value of the IDD.
We discussed that the translation of the library content is very useful
for the software UI if we could add a "label" to the metedata for use in
forms.
It was noted that we now have a UBL CD document that will require
maintenance. We need a synchronization plan to ensure coordination
between the various localization SCs. There will be a need to translate
new entries and to improve translations of existing entries.
One of the attractions of the IDD is that it could be a repository on a
website and the entries would be URIs that could be pointed to.
The LSCs shared their different approaches in doing translation. In
Japan individual translation was done, and then a peer review took
place. In Korea this was done more in a group with a coordinator.
In China, there were 3 phases. First the BIEs were translated, one
person did the draft translation, it was group reviewed, this was just
within CNIS this review.During this process much attention was paid to
the old EDI translations. The existing translations of EDI were then
reviewed by Industry Experts.
In Japan existing EDI translations were also used as basis for the
initial translations.
a. Recommendations for new Localization SC
Generally, an expert would be appointed to perform an initial
translation. Attention should be paid to any existing translations of
BIEs (e.g. EDI translations). The initial translation should then be
reviewed by a group of experts who will look at harmonization and
semantic integrity.
b. Changes to the process required for maintenance
We propose to adopt a versioning scheme to act as an indicator for the
change log. Every entry has to be versioned so it is readily
identifiable what has changed.
c. Changes to the process for translations to the new dictionary entries
The environment for translation will be set up, but we won't apply
translation until CD 2.0 is finalized.
We discussed that a good way of validating the translations is to see
that the data when translated is formatted in the right way. For this we
need a stylesheet in the different languages. These formatted views
could then be used by the LSC review teams to review the translations.
Having an abbreviated label for the output media (see above) would
assist in this task.
We propose to create a project team for this and also support the
request from HISC for use-case participants.
6. Discussion of possible UBL transition to UN/CEFACT
In a lengthy and considered discussion, all attendess presented their
assessment of the concerns and opportunities of this transition. The
key points were:
a. ISO accreditation would be extremely significant for UBL adoption in
Asia. Both China and Korea automatically adopt and develop ISO
standards. If UN/CEFACT can fast track UBL as an ISO standard it would
be attractive. However we are unsure if OASIS and the MOU still offer
an alternative.
b. However, the market would be confused if UN/CEFACT published
alternative document schemas.
c. The reluctance of UN/CEFACT to consider adopting the UBL NDRs does
not bode well for integration with other UN/CEFACT work items.
d. Of all the areas for UBL, the UN/eDocs (TBG ??) appears the most
palatable to both parties.
e. A key to ongoing development of UBL will be the willingness of our
current memebrs to transition with it.
Calendar review
The Danish, British and other scandinavian governments are meeting on
May 19th in Copenhagen to discuss UBL. Peter Borresen will provide
details to the list.
The ebXML Asia Committee meeting will take place in Hong Kong in June.
Thomas Lee will provide details
We will seek a meeting in Europe in early March 2006, and an additional
meeting in Korea in the early May 2006 if appropriate.
Individual Action Items
Peter Borresen:
* will incorporate the IDA requirements in to the 2.0 Issues list
* with Thomas Lee will liaise with Crimson Logic on the suitability for
UBL of the model for digital signatures as provided by the COML project
* investigate whether a despatch advice can satisfy the information
requirements of a rectification advice
* provide details of the British and other scandinavian governments
meeting on May 19th in Copenhagen to the UBL list.
Saito-san:
* take the current UBL library and divide it in to contexts.
Thomas Lee:
* document new three-level architecture and send to Saito-san.
* upload the DTTN codelist approach paper to the UBL list.
* with Peter Borresen will liaise with Crimson Logic on the suitability
for UBL of the model for digital signatures as provided by the COML project
* provide details of ebXML Asia meeting in Hong Kong.
Mavis Cournane:
* lead the discussion in the Atlantic call for the new rules required
for the 3 three layers of schemas.
* lead the discussion in NDR about the need to remove any rules that
would not be required now that we are adopting the ATG schemas. In that
case do we need any UBL NDR rules about the CoreComponent types.
Mikkel Brun:
* propose a Invoice Rejection message.
* update extended business process model diagrams
Tim McGrath:
* raise the suggestion that once the NDR work is complete that there may
be time and resource to pick up the customisation requirements.
* put back missing Account Response document in the Seller Billed
Invoicing diagram.
* transfer COML requirements onto 2.0 issues list
Jon Bosak:
* update UBL web page with link to KRLSC guidelines,
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business
Informatics and Web Services
(coming soon from MIT Press)
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E
-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476