| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 24|25 October 2005
- From: Mark Leitch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: <email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:49:13 +0100
Title: Re: [ubl] Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 24|25 October 2005
Jon (and list)
I have to take some issue with the report PSC report and agree with Tim.
The Monday meetings are well publicised and have been for some time. The only attendees at these meetings have been Tim, Sylvia and Peter Borresen and me (with some participation from Jostein in Norway)
I believe that that group is informed enough to have made the changes we have made thus far. These comprise changes to some of the Procurement Documents and some elements of the Procurement Library; many of the changes are corrections of errors from the original take on of the OGC/IDA elements.
Following this Monday’s meeting I mailed the list with prospective times for extra meetings on Tuesday, Wednesday and maybe Friday this week.
I also posted my notes from the Monday meeting, as did Tim.
The attendees at the Tuesday meeting were Sylvia, Peter and me.
Notes were posted to the list at the end of the meeting.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the true urgency of the work we’re trying to get done here. Please let me know if I should extend the schedule to take account of a detailed internal review of our work prior to the public consultation period.
Just so everyone knows (again), we plan to have another meeting on Wednesday 26th October at 0800 UTC, the subject of which will be the UBL Common Library. We will start this on the bridge and move to Skype if necessary.
Director - Tritorr Ltd
Tel.: +44 1932 821112
Cell.: +44 7881 822999
> From: <email@example.com>
> Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
> To: <email@example.com>
> Subject: [ubl] Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 24|25 October 2005
> MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING
> 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2005
> Jon Bosak (chair)
> Stephen Green
> Tim McGrath
> Andy Schoka
> Sylvia Webb
> JB: Note time change next week! This Pacific call remains in
> the same time slot (00h30-02h30 UTC), but for callers in North
> America, it will *seem* to start an hour earlier. In other
> 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY
> 16h30 - 18h30 Mon San Francisco
> 19h30 - 21h30 Mon New York
> 08h30 - 10h30 Tue Hong Kong, Singapore, Perth, Beijing
> 09h30 - 11h30 Tue Seoul, Tokyo
> 11h30 - 13h30 Tue Sydney
> When in doubt, plug the UTC time into the time and date service:
> STANDING ITEMS
> Additions to the calendar:
> No additions to the calendar.
> JB: How did things go at the OASIS Adoption Forum?
> TM: Interesting event, 50-60 people. Solid OASIS presence
> in Europe. Disussions with people in other OASIS TCs showed
> a lot of interest in UBL. UBL talk was well received. A
> significant panel discussion at the end with people from
> various standards organizations raised the question of how
> standards bodies coordinate their activities.
> Liaison report: ebBP TC
> SG: The TC expressed thanks for the help from UBL and is now
> in the process of repackaging their spec for the next public
> Subcommittee report: HISC
> SG: Note changes to the content model.
> JB: Is this the first backward-incompatible semantic change?
> TM: Not the first, but this is a deliberate change of tag
> name, undertaken with some trepidation at the request of
> Denmark and Sweden. The definition stays the same, but
> there is a different tag name and DEN.
> [See further discussion under Subcommittee report: PSC]
> Subcommittee report: SBSC
> See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200510/msg00070.html
> AGREED: SBSC to make the changes noted in email by SG, and
> after approval by the TC, submit the revised CD for a 15-day
> public review of the changes.
> Subcommittee report: PSC
> TM: Will be meeting 0800 UTC Tuesday, during the Europe/Asia
> call at 0800 UTC Wednesday, and possibly Friday as well.
> Still dealing with issues, still several to go through; will
> be lucky to finish this week. Will probably have a set of
> spreadsheets that address the issues by the end of this
> week, then discussion and review next week, maybe editorial
> review; so the earliest to present draft models to EF is
> probably the week of 7 or maybe even 14 November.
> SW: With regard to recent content changes, no opposition to
> doing what needs to be done, but the PSC should not be
> making changes of this magnitude without taking them to the
> full TC.
> SG: We're not seeing minutes. I was not consulted about
> meeting times and therefore can't participate, and the F2Fs
> are not on the phone. We need more time to respond; we
> can't be dealing with the issues at the last minute.
> SW: Meeting announcements are not going out in advance;
> decisions are being made, but we have no clue about what was
> discussed and what the reasoning was. This is a source of
> TM: Accept criticism about lack of visibility and
> accountability, but we're also battling against the
> timetable. Would rather see that we meet the timetable and
> deal with feedback in public review or TC review. The need
> right now is for PSC to put things on paper, then we can
> make further changes as necessary.
> JB: Changes should be documented in mail. We don't want to
> go into public review with major disagreements already
> TM: The changes we're talking about are not that
> SG: The problem is that they're all lumped together. We
> need a change log.
> TM: What we need is email at the conclusion of every round
> of edits that notes significant changes. SG has identified
> a couple of issues already. (AGREED.)
> Subcommittee report: TSC
> TM: May actually overtake PSC. Very good f2f in Singapore
> last Thursday.
> AS: The wrap-up was very positive. Looks to be finishing by
> the end of the month.
> TM: Close to agreement on models in UML form before building
> spreadsheets, so the actual creation of spreadsheets is
> straightforward and will start now. TSC is still on
> schedule. However, we did discuss the fact that CL has been
> commissioned to take on the development of another three
> transport documents and would like them to be part of UBL
> 2.0. Could these be included after the public review?
> JB: Adding that much new content increases the odds that we
> will need a third public review.
> SG: The prospect of a more complete transport set is good
> news, but it will be better to get them into the first round
> of reviews.
> JB: Yes. How quickly can this be done?
> TM: Not within the original schedule.
> AGREED that the TSC should discuss the scheduling
> implications of adding the additional document types at its
> meeting 2 November and report back to the TC.
> Team report: Catalogue
> TM: Has slipped a week due to travel. The Catalogue group
> had its final f2f on 13 October; well attended, with
> additional new input from groups representing the French and
> Italian governments. This input has resulted in significant
> changes that TM must now apply to the model. The meeting
> also disposed of an issue regarding classification schemes;
> the group was going to develop those, but on being advised
> that this is part of the work of the TBG1 and CEN/ISSS
> catalogue project, have decided to use the result of that
> work instead (the documents such as Classification Scheme,
> etc.). This reduces our work but adds a dependency on
> theirs. The CEN/ISSS documents are scheduled for delivery
> next year, so we will have to add them after the first
> public review. We may not include them in the package,
> just point to them.
> Team report: Code Lists
> At this point, a very long and confusing discussion took
> place regarding code lists and the need for a UBL QDT
> module. Principal outcomes:
> - It appears that we are still not absolutely sure which
> code lists will be part of UBL 2.0, not because of
> questions about the categorization we arrived at in
> Ottawa but simply because we haven't formed a complete
> - DavidK has developed a mechanism whereby we can use the
> ATG2 UDT and still use code values as both attribute and
> element content.
> - If we eliminate UBL amount, we don't need a QDT or
> spreadsheets for QDT. But there are design reasons to
> not close the door on this.
> ACTION: SG and SW to create a UBL UDT spreadsheet that
> describes everything in the ATG2 UDT schema, ignoring what
> UBL currently has for UDT and QDT, and then create the UBL
> QDT using the same structure.
> ACTION: SG and SW to manually update the CC parameter
> We note that creation of the UDT and QDT will require
> assistance from GEFEG.
> Review of Atlantic and Europe/Asia calls
> No comments.
> Schedule review
> JB: We've run out of time to discuss my message about the
> support package and will have to add this to the Atlantic TC
> ACTION ITEM REVIEW
> ACTION: TM to document the spreadsheet structure and format by
> first week of October. This means a prose description of
> each column in the spreadsheets that we are now using.
> Changed to "first week of November."
> ACTION: JB to revise the UBL 2.0 schedule to separate the core
> 2.0 package from the informative materials.
> Core done; informative depends on time estimates requested
> in the message regarding the support package.
> Jon Bosak
> Chair, OASIS UBL TC
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]