Minutes of Eurasian Call June 1 2005

[Mavis Cournane <mavis.cournane@cognitran.com>]

Dear all
please find below the minutes of today's Eurasian call.

Regards
Mavis
---------------------
Attendees
Mavis Cournane
Saito-San
Tim McGrath
Sue Probert
Thomas Lee
Peter Borresen

0.1  Liaisons

AFEAL - linked to the Pan-Asia Alliance a governmental initiative 
between Europe and Asia about the exchange of documents based around 
the UNeDocs project. From Asia there is Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, 
Malaysia and 3 European countries. Sue Probert is a member of the UK 
delegation to AFEAL, and could perhaps fulfill a liaison role in the 
future.

0.2 Localization Subcommittees

JPLSC had a F2F May 25th but attendance was low. The topic of the 
meeting was the report of the Hangzhou meeting, and the deployment 
strategy for UBL in the Japanese market place. An activity will be 
planned over the next few months. The next meeting will be in 2 months 
time, and are discussing using email to keep in touch.
JPLSC has gone through the spreadsheet and have identified contexts.

0.3 Calendar review
eBXML Asia committee meeting will be in Hong Kong in June 20-24

0.4 NDR document

Mavis Cournane and Mike Grimley will be editors of NDR with Mark 
Crawford as the lead editor.

1.  The Draft IDA/OGC extended procurement model

This was looked at by PB and he tried to simplify it.
We don't need an invoice response only an invoice rejection.
The rejection advice could be handled within the receipt advice.

The review indicated that PurchaseParty was missing from the model i.e. 
the BuyingGroupParty.
SP: If we had a set of definitions that clarified the names in the 
procurement process. I have 2 tables that might be of interest.

Action item
Sue Probert will provide PB with the terminology used to describe 
Parties in the UNeDOCs and TBG. The aim is to have a consistent 
vocabulary. PB would be the editor of the table and flag what UBL will 
call these Parties and do a mapping between the tables provided by Sue 
and the UBL table.

TM: How far down the path are we to agreeing this with IDA and OGC
PB: I have just sent this document out to them, so I am awaiting 
comments.

Tim McGrath is still holding regular meetings with IDA and OGC to 
discuss the procurement model. The aim is to synchronize their work 
with ours, and find the best way to progress this in the future.

2. UBL Issues List
There were comments to PB that have not yet been incorporated. He needs 
some help on format etc. TM will assist with this.

Action item
The issues list will need to be updated with IDA/OGC extended 
procurement process requirements and the Danish government 
requirements. It will then go to Betty Harvey for consolidation and 
editing.

Certificate of origin requirements will be incorporated in the 
Transportation Process work.

3. Transportation

TM: Other areas not on the issues list is the area of Certificate of 
Origin

TL and PB discussed area of digital signature with Crimson Logic.
TL studied the CL model, where they put the digital signature inside 
the document in an ABIE. There is a second digital signature in the 
document header.
TM: I understood the issue with the C of Origin is that it will contain 
references to other documents. The value of having the signature in the 
document, is that it is the digital signature to the attachment of the 
C of Origin.
PB: A digital signature is not a signature of the XML document, but of 
a signed document. In Hangzhou we said we would treat this as a 
document reference.

TM: It might be worth having a call with CL to discuss this further.
TL: What is the timeframe for deciding an approach?
TM: It is not on the critical path. Timing is something we can work in 
our favour. The key players will be at eBXML Asia so a meeting can take 
place to discuss it then.

TM: Cert of Origin introduces a different business process to UBL, 
there are 2 significant components that we now need to incorporate. We 
have not yet added these to the UBL issues list.

Action item
TM will add the C of Origin additions to the Issues List.

New ABIEs will be required.

TM: We have now been approached by DTTN in Hong Kong.
They have developed more than 60 document types for trade and 
transport. The conceptual models are exportable as UBL like 
spreadsheets.
What they have produced is a very UBL-like library of document types 
and very UBL-like reusable library of components. DTTN have offered to 
donate that library to UBL.
TL and TM have had some meetings with DTTN, and are coming to terms 
with the scope of this, and how manageable it would be for UBL to take 
that on.

Action item
TM and TL will scope what is involved with the DTTN project and a 
meeting will take place on June 3rd to discuss this further.

4. UNCEFACT UBL Alignment project
SP and TM are representatives on this team. A meeting was held on May 
31st to discuss this. The proposal was made at that meeting the 
objective for UBL 2.0 that would facilitate future alignment with 
UNCEFACTs CCTS is pre-harmonization with the work emerging from UNeDocs 
owned by TBG2 (Digital Paper).
A feasibility study will be done to study the requirements for 2.0. A 
recommendation will be made to UBL and CEFACT as to how we should 
proceed towards UBL 2.0. A short term project will be established over 
the next 2-3 weeks to look at UNeDOCs and UBL 2.0 and see how we can 
best incorporate it, and what is the best way forward to get the best 
leverage out of both groups.

TM: UBL 2.0 needs to address complete compliance with CCTS. This will 
form part of the feasibility project.
 From the UBL perspective we will need volunteers to join TM and SG to 
join the discussions with UNeDocs to prepare the feasibility study.
Peter Borresen would be interested in participating.
Thomas Lee will also participate.

By the 15th of June recommendations will be published to both groups.

Action
TM will organise a call to discuss this.

The scope of UBL 2.0 in terms of the documents we want to incorporate 
will form part of that feasibility. How UBL provides for the Transport 
documents and the C of Origin will form part of that feasibility.

5. The Structure of UBL 2.0 models
With Saito-San and TL help we have investigated UBLs conceptual model.
TM: What we are trying to achieve here in the restructure is the 
ability of UBL to expose its core component library. This has a common 
goal with all those trying to implement CCTS. Part of the feasibility 
study is if the UBL architecture is going to get us towards CCTS 
compliance.

Any work on the schema diagram in NDR should be put on hold until the 
outcome of the feasibility problem.
NDR work may not be completed now until the end of June.

TM: What has been produced by Saito San is a very attractive 
architecture. We can enter this discussion about compliance in a much 
more confident way, now that we can see how this new architecture can 
help us do this.

Initial concerns regarding the proposed 3-layered architecture for UBL 
have been allayed and restructuring is seen as practical. With the 
opportunity to bring together the work of UBL and UNCEFACT we may need 
to adapt the restructure.

6. There are issues with naming and design rules that we can discuss in 
this call.

We should append references to the content and the NDR issues list.

MC: The opportunity in this call is to allow a discussion of the NDR 
from the participants. Editorial changes will be made in the Atlantic 
call and will then be posted to the list.
TM: On the last pacific call there was an NDR issue raised that we did 
not know what to do with it. It relates to the Core Component Types, on 
the Core Component Types, Amounts and Quantities for Measure, they do 
not have sufficient supplementary components. This is documented inside 
CCTS. This issue can be fed back to ATG2.

Action item
Mavis will raise this on the Atlantic call, and will update the 
Eurasian call next week.

MC: I raised the issue of what we should be doing after NDR has done 
its work.  I had suggested we may look at customisation, but is this 
perhaps not what we would want to do.
TM: Mikkel Brun's question is how customisable are the UBL schemas. 
This is a hand in glove exercise between the model and the schema. What 
you are suggesting timing wise is very good. Further discussion will be 
required on this.