Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 7 September 2005

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING
15H00 - 17H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 7 SEPTEMBER 2005

ATTENDANCE

   Peter Borresen
   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Mavis Cournane
   Betty Harvey
   Anne Hendry
   Zarella Rendon
   Paul Thorpe
   Sylvia Webb

   Note that Mavis will be unable to attend most of the next two
   weeks.

STANDING ITEMS

Additions to the calendar:
   http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm

   None.

Liaison reports

   AGREED to accept Stephen Green's offer to serve as liaison
   between the OASIS UBL TC and the OASIS ebBP TC.

Subcommittee report: SSC

   AH: SSC is figuring out a better time to meet; SW has sent out
   a discussion proposal for how we're going to do Q/A.

Team report: Code Lists

   JB: MartyB sends regrets for this meeting.  He has resumed the
   email discussion with GKH and is working on the code list
   schema.

Team report: Digital Signatures

   PB: Talked to ThomasL; will send him a suggestion for signature
   document reference.

Review of Pacific and Europe/Asia calls

   MavisC: Was in the Europe/Asia only briefly, but has a concern
   about she heard regarding maintanance of our own Specialized DT
   schemas.  NDR team needs to understand this better.  Requests
   that this be put on the agenda for the next Pacific TC meeting.

Schedule review:
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00167.html

   Customization

      MavisC: MikkelB in the Europe/Asia call wondered if we could
      start the customization discussion and could still put in
      customization requirements to the NDR doc.  Replied that
      customization should not affect schema generation, but TM
      said that we must be able to allow changes to affect the
      NDRs.

      JB: We're trying to avoid any changes to the NDRs, but that
      could always happen; if it does, we may have a problem with
      the schedule, but if it has to happen, then we can't prevent
      that.

   "Define a minor versioning methodology" (row 8)

      AGREED that we will kick off the discussion of minor
      versioning next week, with MavisC joining for the second
      hour to guide that.

      ACTION: MavisC to contact MikkelB regarding his attempt to
      create a minor version of UBL.

   "Generate phase 1 schemas" (row 10)

      SW: DavidK says he did not get feedback on the last set
      except from SG; so he believes that he has completed all
      programming for the current NDRs.  He can't do additional
      programming if he doesn't hear feedback.  He is requesting
      addtional info re the code list proposal; he's having a
      difficult time assessing potential impact of the second
      proposal based on the exchange between TonyC and MartyB to
      date.  He wants schema examples for what they expect from
      Edifix.

      JB: What of the problems reported Monday?

      SW: All turned out to be human errors in the generatiof of
      the Common and Procurement spreadsheets; there does not
      appear to be an EF problem.  Will correct these errors
      manually and reinput to EF to produce a new set of schemas
      this week.

   "Define and document representative extended procurement
   scenarios" (row 30)

      JB: How is this different from the extended procurement
      description and which is normative?  Add to Pacific TC
      agenda.  (See action item review for more on this)

ACTION ITEM REVIEW

   ACTION: SW to check on implementation of 2.0 NDRs per row 9 of
   the schedule and report back on Monday.

      Done.

   ACTION: PB to begin work on defining and documenting
   representative extended procurement scenarios per row 30 of the
   schedule.

      PB: We are trying to get a contractor to work on this.  We
      need to develop a template for specifying scenarios and a
      classification scheme for scenarios.  We want to align with
      the OGC descriptions; this is a good way to test the UBL
      model.  We can't progress this item till we have a
      contractor, but we're still aiming to hit October 24.

   ACTION: TC members visiting NYC in October or November to check
   out the Sun facilities and see whether they are suitable for a
   UBL TC meeting.  JB will be coming through in mid-November and
   will also check then.

      Pending.

   ACTION: MarkC to review schema import diagrams in the NDR
   document and update as appropriate.

      Pending.  This is becoming critical.  No one else has the
      tool to do this (Visio).

   ACTION: MB to continue code list dialog with GKH.

      In progress.

   ACTION: MarkC to send ATG paper on CLs to MB and share it with
   the list when that becomes possible.

      Status unknown.

   ACTION: MikkelB to provide a clear specification of what is
   required by law in DK regarding CLs by next week.

      Done.

   ACTION: MartyB to provide a revised example of the enum version
   of the currency CL as formerly proposed but without
   substitution groups, by next week if possible.

      Pending.

   ACTION: TonyC to provide a script that will transform a CL
   instance conforming to the proposed CL schema into a schematron
   schema by next week.

      Think this is done but haven't had a chance to review Tony's
      latest message on this.

CODE LISTS

JB: What's the difference mechanically between the codes we supply
and the ones we don't?  For example, how would a user turn off
validation of the currency code list to put it back into the
unsupplied category?  How would the user change to enum form?  Do
either of these changes require a change to the doc schemas?

ACTION: JB to ask in email.

JB: I think that these are the issues:

   1. Whether we should supply any code lists that we are not
      completely responsible for defining

   2. What to do with ATG-supplied code lists

   3. How to include sufficient version info to provide an audit
      trail of code list changes

   4. How to document the two different methods for adding code
      lists to the set we provide

(General agreement that these appear to be the issues needing
resolution by the TC.)

Issue 1: Whether we should supply any code lists that we are not
completely responsible for defining

   JB: Should we include lists we don't define (setting aside the
   question of including lists defined by ATG2)?

   MavisC: No. This should be considered customization.

   BH: No. What if the code list issuer changes the list and
   people keep using the version we've supplied.

   SW: With the exception of lists defined by ATG2, code lists
   should be left to trading partners, at least for the
   foreseeable future.  We don't see ad hoc transactions without
   detailed trading partner agreements, even with CPP.  If we
   included these code lists, we would bear the responsibility for
   maintaining them and informing users of changes.  We need to
   give implementers the greatest flexibility in implementation.

   AH: No (as stated in the email message that started this
   discussion).  The support and compatibility problems could be
   phenomenal.

   ZH: No opinion.

   PT: No, with the possible exception of country codes.  We
   should be trying to get others to maintain code lists.

   PB: Would be nice to have in the package, but maybe in a
   special folder.

   JB: So these could become part of the informative materials
   along with the code list documentation.

   ??: Put them on the web site...

   PT: It depends on how often a code list could change; if it's
   "never," then there's no problem with including it.

   JB: Maybe the ATG decisions will decide this for us.

   AGREED that we can include in the normative parts of UBL 2.0
   any public code lists that ATG takes responsibility for, but
   not other code lists that we don't maintain.

   JB: We will continue discussing the remaining issues next week.

NDR WORK SESSION

   ACTION: JB to check whether MikeG and MarkC will be on the call
   next week so that we can begin work on a minor versioning
   methodology.

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC