[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 6|7 2005
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 7 JUNE 2005 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Tim McGrath Micah Dubinko Stephen Green G. Ken Holman Kumar Sivaraman Sylvia Webb ADMINISTRIVIA JonB: I am moving from California to New York (Ithaca) and will be on the road the week of 4 July. AGREED that in light of the chair's absence and the Independence Day holiday in the U.S., we will cancel the Pacific call normally scheduled for 4|5 July. We will NOT cancel the Europe/Asia call that week, which will take place as usual 08h00-10h00 UTC Wednesday 6 July. We MAY cancel the Atlantic call that week depending on how many participants will be unable to attend. JonB: Please review the weekly concall schedule and get back to me with corrections. STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm) TimM: Add to the CSW summer school, but remove from the CEN workshop 1 July. KenH: Looks like XTech 2006 will again be in Amsterdam in mid-may, but the SC34 2Q2006 meeting will be in Seoul. Liaison report: X12 SylviaW: Just started the meeting; nothing to report yet. Subcommittee report: HISC KenH: Have rearranged the weekly schedule to accommodate a discussion with SueP and MichaelD regarding the work of TBG2; there may be collaboration opportunities. MicahD had some success talking to vendors in Amsterdam. We are waiting to know how many docs will be in 2.0. TimM: This will be decided by two things: (1) the extended process model, which is not as stable as we thought; there will be 7-8 new doc types in the extended model, but we're not sure yet what they will be called. Have told the group that we need to decide this week, so we should have a definite answer regarding the number of procurement docs by this time next week. (2) Transport docs; this includes CO for sure, and if resources are available, we could accept a proposal from HK to add 3-4 of the most basic transport docs identified in the APEC Paperless Trade initiative, probably including Bill of Lading, Waybill, and Forwarding Instruction. Including those three would add to the Reusable library about 90 percent of the elements needed to support transportation in general. KenH: So the task of the HISC would be to identify the UN Layout Key equivalents... TimM: These transport docs are what the UNLK was made for, so there are lots of examples. Also, the preharmonization feasability study we're doing with UNeDocs may open the door for greater collaboration. JonB: We would want collaboration with UNeDocs in any event. Subcommittee report: SBSC StephenG: Just uploaded the (nearly) final package and have started a vote; we should have a package to recommend to the TC by next week. JonB: What about the RNG schemas? KenH: We're now providing both RNG and XSD schemas. They express the same semantics, and either can be used for validation. Subcommittee report: SSC StephenG: The SSC meeting this week was well attended by GEFEG, who emphasized their commitment to the project and are aware that it's going to be difficult to get anything in before DavidK goes on vacation in July. We can't ask him to proceed with anything we haven't completely decided, so that pushes us back till after his holiday. He needs the changes to arrive in batches no closer that two weeks apart, so maybe we can get one batch to him in June and another after he gets back. TimM: Note that restructuring the models for 2.0 will have an impact on tools, and nothing has been decided about this yet. One of the objectives for 2.0 has to be recognized compliance with ISO 15000-5, and that's hard to guarantee. Our best guides to compliance are MarkC and MichaelD, and we haven't heard from them yet with regard to the new model and whether it is CCTS compliant. ACTION: JonB to schedule a discussion of CCTS compliance that will include MarkC and MichaelD. TimM: In the meantime we have to proceed with what we've got; a decision must be in place by the end of July when we actually assemble the models. Team report: Transport [was COML] TimM: met with the HK group last week to discuss how to package their three additional doc types [see above]. The HK group started with UBL around 0.7, extended it to about twice the size, and developed 65 new doc types on this basis. We're doing a bit of re-engineering to find out what they've extended and how to apply that to UBL 2.0. This set is about the nearest thing to a UBL customization that we could hope for. There are a few issues to resolve, but these overlap with some we've already received from the European procurement group and the Tax XML TC. So ThomasL and I are working through the HK data models to perform a gap analysis. We hope to finish this week and put it in a form we can use in developing UBL 2.0. Incorporation of the CO work is now an action item with the DTTN/HK group, which is now meeting regularly once a week and is aware that we are performing the feasability study with UNeDocs. Team report: Government eProcurement TimM: Held a lengthy telecon last week. The extended process model has gone from OGC/IDA to the plenary in Hangzhou and back to the European group, which has come back with more concerns, so we're not exactly sure what the process will look like yet; this is why we gave them a deadline. CONTENT WORK SESSION Regarding Tax XML TC input: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200506/msg00002.html TimM: We thank the Tax XML TC for this input. The two recurring issues we need to talk about are (1) the way we model parties and roles, and (2) the use of identifiers. These are also key issues for government procurement and transport. StephenG: Not sure that attaching business rules to addresses is in scope for UBL. We're being asked to represent rules in the data structure, but rules change. UBL standardizes the structures on which the laws are based; we can't base our structures on the laws. AGREED that tax reporting is a different business process from the one we're developing for. UBL is attempting to define a generic tax model, and what's missing are guides to explain how tax business rules are applied to UBL components. What we would like to have for 2.0 is an implementation guide for how to use UBL 2.0 to satisfy tax reporting requirements for various regulatory environments. We need to invite the Tax XML TC to a joint discussion on this. TimM: It's a legitimate requirement to provide every value explicitly at the line item level rather than calculating some of them from values given for the others. Beyond that, the main issues are roles and parties. Input on this was one of the breakthroughs achieved in discussions with the European stakeholders, and we're awaiting a white paper on this from PeterB. We also seem to be making progress on the idea of Role; the Tax XML TC has provided good input on the terminology for this, but we will probably model this not as types but rather as explicit qualifiers. FOR NEXT WEEK TimM: We still need to update the 2.0 issues list, which is in the hands of PeterB at the moment; we need that for next week's call. We have just a couple of weeks to complete this, and then we need to create the data model for 2.0. ACTION: PeterB to finish up the 2.0 issues list so that we can review it 13|14 June. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]