OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 23 November 2005

16H00 - 18H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 2005


   Peter Borresen
   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Marty Burns
   Mavis Cournane
   Stephen Green
   Mike Grimley
   Betty Harvey
   Andy Schoka
   Paul Thorpe
   Sylvia Webb


   Additions to the calendar:


   Subcommittee and team updates to Pacific call status reports


   Review of Pacific and Europe/Asia calls

      No comments.

   Schedule review

      JB: It's still possible that we can start the initial review
      before Xmas, but it's going to be tight.


   JB: For future reference, the decisions we made in Ottawa can
   be found at


   This is still the plan of record.

   SW: MB appears to be proposing that we replace the UBL 1.0
   format for enumerated code lists with a different one.

   JB: What's the difference?

   MB: The 1.0 CL format was not extensible using substitution
   groups or redefines.  The proposed format does not require
   substitution groups, but it does allow their use while still
   providing all of the features desired by the TC.

   JB: We've decided that we're not going to use substitution
   groups for code lists and minor versioning, but I don't think
   we decided that we weren't going to let anyone else use them.

   MB: The basic principle is this: substitution groups and
   redefines must derive from a common base type.  UBL 1.0 had no
   identifier at all and had content types with actual
   enumerations.  The proposal is to make the basic simple type a
   union of normalized string and enumeration.  OAGIS 9 uses the
   same approach.

   JB: Any structural problem with this approach?

   MG: We have a rule against using union; that would have to

   ACTION: NDR editors to investigate the implications of MB's
   proposal and report back to the TC next week with a summary of
   the arguments pro and con and (we hope) a recommendation.

   JB: Note that we will have to decide as a matter of policy
   whether we want to allow the application of substitution groups
   by users.

   SW: The evaluation of MB's proposal will have to include a look
   and how adoption will impact our decision to adopt ATG schemas
   and answer the question of how we create the QDT using the
   genericode approach.


   JB: We are in receipt of the revised UBL 1.0 Small Business Subset:


   ACTION: TC to review the proposed SBS and be ready to start
   balloting next week.


   ACTION: MB to talk to PB and see if Denmark can help out with
   business process for input to ebBP.

      From last minutes:

      AS: CEFACT has developed business process specs that can be
      found on the UNECE site under UN/CEFACT: "business
      requirement specification"... cross-industry invoice.

      ACTION: SW to upload the UNECE business requirement
      specifications (BRSs) and notify the list.

      ACTION: AS to look at the UNECE cross-industry invoice
      document to see whether there are points that might be
      relevant to SG's work with the ebBP TC.

   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.

      JB: The rooms look good (much better than Menlo Park), so
      we're "go" for the meeting in Manhattan the week of 23

      ACTION: JB to check with ubl-dev to see whether there is any
      interest in holding a UBL UG meeting that Friday (27

      MG: Will be staying at the Courtyard by Marriott near Times
      Square; will forward to the list.

   ACTION: MB to check with PB regarding time estimates for the
   business process scenarios.

      PB: First of February. The first two packages are finished,
      but will wait for 2.0 schemas.


   SW has submitted several questions needing resolution this week:


   Issue 1. The problem is that we need Definition to be optional
   to avoid the error noted by Altova, but our NDRs, the ATG2
   NDRs, and CCTS all require it to be mandatory.

      AGREED that we should be CCTS compliant, so Definitions
      should stay mandatory as currently stated in the NDRs.
      We're going to review the Definitions in the spreadsheets to
      make sure that one Definition exists for each code list and
      that it's appropriate to include it in the schemas.  If this
      turns out to be impossible, we will include an empty
      Definition rather than be CCTS noncompliant.

      ACTION: SG to check to see where the problem Definitions are
      and see whether the Definitions can be put in the schemas.

      SW: There is another CCTS compliance issue: UID.

      ACTION: NDR editors to review the issue of UIDs and CCTS

   Issue 2. AGREED that the correct namespace version should be 2,
   not 2.0 (per the decision of 9 November).

   Issue 3. MG: No change to the rule, just to the wording.

      ACTION: NDR editors to edit the NDR document and modify the
      text as suggested in email of 7 November.

   Issue 4. SW: We need to know how the genericode approach is
   going to impact uDT and qDT... What rules need to be changed
   wrt ATG2 schema modules?  If MB's proposal [see above] is
   adopted, we can't use ATG code list schemas or CCTS schemas.

      SG: Or ATG2 would need to adopt the same approach.

      JB: But the ATG2 position appears to be in flux.

      ACTION: JB to forward the ATG2 minutes of 14 November and
      the updated code list schemas of 16 November for use in
      trying to coordinate with ATG2 on these questions.

Jon Bosak

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]