[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 30 November 2005
MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING 16H00 - 18H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 30 NOVEMBER 2005 ATTENDANCE Peter Borresen Jon Bosak (chair) Mikkel Brun Marty Burns Tony Coates Mavis Cournane Stephen Green Mike Grimley Betty Harvey Zarella Rendon Andy Schoka Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm None. ACTION: JB to send Manhattan meeting notice to the list. Subcommittee and team updates to Pacific call status reports No changes. Review of Pacific call No comments. Schedule review JB: Doesn't look good for a December public review. CODE LIST QUESTIONS Question for the TC: Can the first code list methodology document (applying the schematron approach to UBL 1.0 code lists) become a UBL 1.0 CD? AGREED that this sounds like an OK idea. Question for TonyC: Was it expected that UBL would standardize genericode or just point to it? TonyC: OK to include; no encumbrances; whatever works. AGREED that we can include the code list schema in the 2.0 spec. We can either define a subset of the whole genericode schema or include the whole thing but use only part of it. SMALL BUSINESS SUBSET We are supposed to sign off on the SBS this week: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00082.html We discussed how USDOT might use the SBS methodology to define subsets of the UBL 2.0 transportation documents... and how we might use USDOT requirements to define the UBL 2.0 SBS... but we didn't sign off on the 1.0 SBS! Let's finish this up in the Pacific call. ACTION ITEM REVIEW (GENERAL) ACTION: MikkelB to talk to PB and see if Denmark can help out with business process for input to ebBP. Changed to: ACTION: DK team to review the ebBP UBL transactions when they become available next week. ACTION: SW to upload the UNECE business requirement specifications (BRSs) and notify the list. Done. 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. Changed to: ACTION: AS to send the list of definitions from the UNECE cross-industry invoice document to the list. ACTION: AS to send Section 3, Terms and Definitions, from ISO CD 24533 to the list. ACTION ITEM REVIEW (NDR) 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. The proposal specifies the format for whatever enumerated codelist schemas are included in 2.0; it's been demonstrated that the proposed format is consistent with the genericode approach. The question is whether it is CCTS compliant and whether it conflicts with the ATG UDT. AGREED (in advance of testing): we will extend the codetype in the ATG2 UDT schema to be the union of the UDT code type and an enumeration -- each enumeration being a restriction on the UDT code type. This doesn't change our decision to adopt the ATG2 UDT schema. (The token will just happen to be part of an enumeration.) ACTION: NDR editors to reflect this decision in the NDRs. ACTION: MartyB to test this approach against the latest draft 2.0 schemas (draft 10, sent out by PB about a week ago); will try to have this done next week. SW to generate the schema test package for this. ACTION: TC to review the questions posed by MG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00138.html ACTION: SG to check to see where the problem Definitions are and see whether the Definitions can be put in the schemas [relating to issue 1 in last week's NDR work session]. SG: The defs are all there in one version of the QDT spreadsheets. The last QDT sent should have had the defs in the definition column. SW: Will look at that. ACTION: NDR editors to review the issue of UIDs and CCTS compliance. MG: We looked in the archives and found that we originally had the UIDs in there, but then the group assumed that the UID would be assigned by the registry. SW: If any process modifies our content, even for a UID, that seems to be counter to what a standards organization should do... The UID is assigned in the schema. If assigned after the fact, then every instance of the schema can have a different set of unique identifiers. Should this really be a value added after the fact? JB: The dictionary entry name is the unique identifier. The UID is completely redundant. This is so stupid. SW: But it's in CCTS 2.01. It's mandatory: 6 digits with leading zeroes. MG: The UID goes in the documentation section. AGREED: SW is right, we need to assign UIDs in the schema. But we don't really care how it's done. ACTION: SW to suggest a practical mechanical way to assign the UIDs. ACTION: NDR editors to edit the NDR document and modify the text as suggested in email of 7 November [relating to issue 3 in last week's NDR work session]. Done. ACTION: NDR editors to ensure that all mentions of importing the CCTS parameter schema have been removed. 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. Done. OTHER BUSINESS December meetings: We will meet as usual 12/7 and 12/14 but not 12/21 or 12/28. Regular Atlantic TC calls will resume 1/4. We note that MG, MC, and SW cannot attend next week's Atlantic call. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]