[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 9 November 2005
MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING 16H00 - 18H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 9 NOVEMBER 2005 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Stephen Green Michael Grimley Sylvia Webb Mikkel Brun Andy Schoka Paul Thorpe Anne Hendry Tony Coates Zarella Rendon STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm None. Liaison report: Tax XML TC SW: Due to resource constraints, the Tax XML TC has decided that it will create a single guideline for Invoice rather than attempt a guideline for every UBL document. It will cover two jurisdictions: EU (including the UK) and U.S. They need a template or format for these guidelines. They also need specific requirements for guidelines from particular jurisdictions using UBL, for example, what kind of information will be useful. They are trying for a first draft at the end of December, then an additional draft following the f2f scheduled for the last week in February. JB: This should be added to the Support Package. Team report: Code Lists TC: Have identified a problem that GKH was having; will make a small change to accommodate. Liaison report: ebBP TC SG: Starting to work on the full set of business process ebBP definitions based on the full set of UBL 1.0 docs. We need some help with business knowledge of UBL docs and how they fit in with business processes, how these docs are meant to be used... hard and fast rules, actual process definitions. ACTION: MB to talk to PB and see if Denmark can help out with business process for input to ebBP. AS: CEFACT has developed business process specs that can be found on the UNECE site under UN/CEFACT: "business requirement specification"... cross-industry invoice. SG: Will look at that and talk to SW about this. SG: Anything we can say about how to produce a package? JB: Suggest they do what we're doing in producing the nonnormative parts as a separate deliverable. Subcommittee report: SBSC SG: Have forwarded us a recommendation from the SBSC FOR CD2; see link in mail. JB: Will put on the agenda for the next Atlantic call (23 November). Review of Pacific and Europe/Asia calls No comment. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION: JB to poll the TC for attendance at the April F2F in Brussels. Done. 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. Status: Pending. ACTION: Everyone involved in the development of the support pieces to give JB time estimates. JB: We have estimates for SBS from SG. We still need estimates for code lists, HISC, and the business process scenarios. ACTION: MB to check with PB regarding time estimates for the business process scenarios. MB: We need PB on the call. JB: Have him send email. ACTION: NDR editors to propose a suitable version attribute to be used by all UBL instances in time for discussion during the Atlantic TC call 9 November. Done. NDR WORK SESSION: MINOR VERSIONING We took a couple of items out of order so that SW could leave the meeting early. - How does the version value get into the instance? Any implications for EF programming? SW: Version info gets put into EF manually, and then EF puts it in the schemas; we just need to know where the version info is in the schema. MG: In the version attribute. SW: So we're already covered; we already do that. AGREED that EF is told the version manually; EF puts that in the [schema] version attribute, and the application puts it in the instance. Therefore EF needs to know what the UBL version attribute or element in the instance is, and whether a default value will be put there. AGREED that the version value will be of type text with a default value of the most recent version. [I'm not quite sure what that last bit means.] - We have to remember that "2.0" in namespaces changes to "2" throughout. SW: DK says he can implement it this week. [SW leaves before the following discussion.] - The proposed version attribute: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00073.html AGREED to make UBLVersion an element rather than an attribute in order to avoid possible problems with CCTS. MG: So first rule is OK, but must rewrite second and change the rule about instances. - Redefine and minor versioning: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00080.html MG: We need to test redefine more to see whether it is usable in customization and check tool support. Everyone agrees it's the way to go unless there is a prob with customization or tools. We're in the process of investigating this. SG: [Regarding the decision to use "2" rather than "2.0" in namespaces] We should drop the minor version number from the file names as well. AGREED to use "2" in the major version file names rather than "2.0". AGREED that the version number is required. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]