[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 21 September 2005
MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING 15H00 - 17H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2005 ATTENDANCE Peter Borresen Jon Bosak (chair) Mike Grimley Betty Harvey Anne Hendry Zarella Rendon Paul Thorpe STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm None. Liaison reports: Tax XML TC, ebBP TC See Pacific. Subcommittee reports: HISC, SBSC, PSC, TSC ZR: Looking around for additional UNLK forms; found one on the UN site, also found descriptions of forms. Most of the ones on the UN site are ones we already have. What do we do if we can't find others -- come up with our own? JB: Good question. Sounds like we may have to consider creating our own UNLK-like specifications for the documents we're adding in UBL 2.0. ACTION: JB to appeal for samples of paper documents corresponding to our new document types. Team reports: Code List, Digital Signatures, Catalogue PB: The Europe/Asia meeting was cancelled. Review of Pacific and Europe/Asia calls No comments. Schedule review: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00167.html Skipped for this meeting. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION: BR to contact MavisC with input from Denmark regarding minor versioning. PB: BR has a task to follow up on this, but we don't know how far along he is. 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. MG: Done, in hand. ACTION: MarkC to send ATG paper on CLs to MartyB and share it with the list when that becomes possible. Status unknown. QUALIFIED DATA TYPES The question is whether we need to define our own qualified DT for UBL amount. SW (in email): The PSC met yesterday and discussed this item in detail. It was agreed that the PSC recommendation to the TC is for the UBL_Amount be removed from the UBL qDT and replaced by the ATG2 Amount in the uDT. The PSC also recommends that the TC continue to maintain our own qualified DTs when ATG2 unqualified DT's do not meet our requirements for specialized codes. JB: These two statements seem to contradict each other. What qualified DTs are we considering other than UBL amount? PB: Once we remove UBL amount, there aren't any. The PSC recommendation is that we are satisfied to use the amount type as defined by ATG2 but wish to reserve the right to add our own qualified DTs if we should need to do so in the future. JB: So we can live with the ATG2 version of amount? PB: Yes. We can live with the ATG2 way of signifying version because of our new code list strategy. Before, we could not update the version, but with the new approach, this does not appear to be a problem. JB: Aside from code lists, then, have we now resolved all the issues for schema generation at this point? MG: Yes. Due to a technical problem that prevented several members attending meetings in Europe from dialing in to this meeting, we did not have a quorum. Voting members of the UBL TC have one week to register objections to the PSC recommendation, after which, if no objections have been received, the recommendation will be considered adopted by the TC. CODE LISTS Continuing the work. In particular: where do we stand with the genericode schema? JB: We have received two very helpful email reports. The chair commends Tony, Marty, and Sylvia for their virtual contributions this week. TonyC (in email): Just in case I don't get to dial in to the Atlantic call today, the status of the genericode Schema is that I haven't done the changes yet to bring it to 1.0. However, I don't expect those changes (which should be done in the next week or two) to affect UBL at all, beyond the change to the genericode namespace when the version changes. I uploaded new stylesheets that work with Marty's latest code list Schema structure. I also enhanced the generated Schematron to check the code list metadata (and would appreciate Ken's comments on this). However, I have to point out that this checking only applies when you use the *global element* defined in the code list Schema. To get it to work with a differently named element using the same complex type, you would need to write an extra Schematron rule. Alternatively, we would have to experiment with using Schematron with XSLT 2.0 & XPath 2.0 and use the "Schema type aware features". However, I only know of one (commerical) XSLT engine that supports this (Saxon 8A), so it might be better just to tell people how to add the extra Schematron rule (3 lines). MartyB (in email): I have a software quality audit today and will not attend the call. I have received comments from Ken and documents from Tony. I will review them and forward comments. I think that we need the complete example from Ken / Tony in order to continue the discussion with Ken. Also, we need to agree on the schemas we will be working against -- is it UBL 1.0 or some draft of UBL 2.0. And, if the latter, where is the complete set to work from. Tony and Ken are now starting to flesh out the details that were previously only suggested. Therefore it is important that a genuine sample result be evaluated with a real UBL schema set, and, a real sample instance document of the kind we will publish. JB: We won't have a complete set for 2.0 till we're finished with the content work. Let's continue this in email. OTHER BUSINESS PB: Good news: Marty Forsberg has joined from Sweden, and it appears that Sweden will be recommending UBL 1.0 as the default standard for invoicing. JB: Wonderful. Let's try to get more details on this. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]