[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 12|13 September 2005
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 13 SEPTEMBER 2005 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Stephen Green Ken Holman Tim McGrath Kumar Sivaraman Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm SW: The PSC f2f will be hosted by IDA at the EC building complex in Brussels; Tim will be the liaison with IDA. We will need an exact list of attendees. ACTION: SW to put out a meeting notice to the ubl and ubl-psc lists. Liaison report: Tax XML TC SW: Meeting is two weeks away. Liaison report: ebBP TC SG: Has not attended a meeting yet. Sent in a sample ebBP spec instance as a starting point for discussion. Subcommittee report: HISC GKH: Meetings suspended for the moment to do code list work; ZR will investigate form choices and mappings for strawman. Subcommittee report: SBSC SG: Have produced 1.0 files for Altova (JB: Have forwarded); 2.0 on hold till we have schemas. Subcommittee report: PSC SW: Are continuing to work through spreadsheet issues after much analysis and discussion; some changes to EF will need to be made. MD sent mail to the list 9/14 with questions, but didn't get enough feedback then, has now asked additional questions on the list; we need answer back from PB as librarian, and TM may need to help. Subcommittee report: TSC TM: In meeting last week, we reviewed the high level model prepared by TL and looked at how to use it as a harmonization tool between COML and DTTN. We discussed the interest indicated by the USDOT and how they may wish to contribute; agreed that we would look forward to receiving their comments as part of the review of the transport model. We also discussed digital signatures; CrimsonLogic is now expecting to receive a sample instance doc to illustrate the point made by PB. In general we're seeing an improved level of productivity and are almost back on schedule. The TSC is also working on a more comprehensive process model to describe what the docs we're developing will do. Team report: Code List JB: MartyB sends his regrets. We need to understand his latest post on this. We will study it offline. GKH: We need instances of code lists for all of the candidate code lists, or at least dummy ones, to demonstrate an end-to-end validation process. JB: We think that the enum form schema modules in 2.0 will stay the same as they were in 1.0 except maybe with nmtoken instead of normalized string... TM: They are going to have to be the same as in the ATG versions. We think that's xsd:token. GKH: Token "represents tokenized strings"... it's more restricted than normalized string and less than nmtoken and name. AGREED: It's our understanding that the type adopted by ATG will have to be the type we use, so DavidK should use whatever ATG has specified [or is specifying; appears to be a moving target]. Team report: Digital Signatures See TSC report above. Team report: Catalogues TM: Now finalizing the documentation of the process model, candidate components, and document model in the UML form that we will be using. In the next week or so, we will be creating UBL spreadsheets. We're about two weeks away from the first set of doc models that can be passed on to the PSC for their comments, putting us just about on schedule. Also, MikkelB is operating as liaison between the UBL Catalogue project and the CEN/ISSS and TBG 1 catalogue project. He attended a meeting of the C Catalogue group in which input was exchanged and received favorably on both sides, so the collaboration is quite positive. Review of Atlantic and Europe/Asia calls No comments. Schedule review: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00167.html "Generate UML diagrams for phase 1 schemas" Should be supplementary. ACTION: JB to contact Dave Carlson. "Deliver phase 1 input specs and XForms" We haven't heard from MicahD. "Deliver phase 1 input specs and XForms" Should be supplementary. "Develop phase 1 output specs and stylesheets" Should be supplementary. GKH: Still haven't gotten outside info on form choices and mappings. ACTION: JB to ping PB regarding form choices and mappings. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION: TM to respond to the Tax XML TC regarding their input on tax category. Done. ACTION: SG to produce new SBS 1.0 "empty" sample instances for GKH; GKH to produce XPaths by next week. Done. ACTION: SW to continue testing schema output and post results to PSC. Can use this week's SSC meeting slot for work on this if necessary. Done. ACTION: TM to document the spreadsheet structure and format by the first week of October. This means a prose description of each column in the spreadsheets that we are now using. Pending. FOR THIS MEETING Agenda item: "MavisC has requested clarification of last week's Europe/Asia discussion of Specialized DT schemas, in particular any possible impact that this may have on our NDRs." TM: The situation is this. We have agreed to adopt ATG2 schemas for CC types and unqualified DTs, so the type defs of things like amount and code are given to us by ATG2. But in 1.0 we specialized some of those, e.g. amount into UBL amount, because we wanted to restrict it to the ISO code, and similarly for other codes, e.g. ack response code and country code. The question is, what are we going to do with these in UBL 2? ... Because we've adopted the ATG2 schema for unqualified DTs, we have to create our own Qualifed DT schema for qualified data types. It will look very much like specialized DTs in UBL 1. (Subsequent discussion focused on UBL amount. The issue boils down to whether the ATG2 form restricts amount to be an ISO currency, in which case we don't need to implement this restriction ourselves, or does not, in which case we do. This appears to be the same issue identified earlier with regard to the lack of supplementary components in the ATG version and also would involve having a version ID in transaction instances.) ACTION: TM and SG to examine the latest ATG2 draft and report back next week as to whether it meets our requirements. Agenda item: "We need to decide whether the procurement scenarios being prepared by PB are going to be normative; in other words, what replaces the UBL 1.0 normative description of the business process -- the description of the extended procurement process we adopted recently, or a reworked version of that, or also the descriptions of the procurement scenarios?" AGREED: Expand the normative 1.0 process scenario to include new documents, incorporating the already approved extended process, in a way that maintains backward compatibility with UBL 1.0 business rules; require this to be in index.html beginning with the first release, but call it informative, so that the only normative part of UBL 2.0 is the schemas. Add descriptions of the transportation and catalogue scenarios as those pieces are added. Include the spreadsheets in every release. SW: Believe that Robin Cover or Carol Geyer posted a news release about the extended process model; we should look at that to see whether they have labeled this normative. ACTION: JB to find the notice(s) and check to see whether the extended process model has been mistakenly characterized as normative. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]