Re: [ubl] Re: Comments to 3 January build of UBL 2.0 review package by JPLSC

["Yukinori Saito" <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp>]

Dear Jon Bosak,
Thank you very much for your reply.
I understand what you said.
In Japan, almost people use MS Office. Especially, Word and Excel are very
popular in Japan.
On the other hand, very few people use Open Office documents in Japan.
We would like to use .xls format as in the past.

Best Regards,
Yukinori Saito

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>; <ito@sunbridge.com>; <naitoh@is.oit.ac.jp>;
<kueno@iea.att.ne.jp>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:00 AM
Subject: [ubl] Re: Comments to 3 January build of UBL 2.0 review package by
JPLSC


[saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp:]

| 1. Universal Business Language 2.0 (index.html)
| (1) This V2.0 (index.html) is great progress to V1.0. There were much
| technical descriptions at V1.0.
| However, there are much descriptions of business process and business
| documents in V2.0.
| V2.0 (index.html) is much understandable and acceptable for UBL users
(e.g.
| Business Experts).

I'm glad to learn that this seems to be heading in the right
direction.

| (2) The section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 are describing change from V1.0 to V2.0.
| We think that these sections should be moved to Appendix.

I understand, but I can think of reasons both ways.  The
differences between UBL 1.0 and UBL 2.0 may be the most important
information for UBL 1.0 implementers.  I think we should leave
this "as is" for the moment and see what other people think before
making the change.  Let's log this as an issue.

| (3) There are descriptions about changed Elements and Attributes at
section
| 1.3.3 and 1.3.4. There is no information of the reason why these Elements
| and Attributes are changed. Especially, removed items should need to
| describe the reasons. For example: The item is removed because the
function
| became unnecessary. The item is removed because the item is achieved by
| another means.

Yes, we definitely need to complete these sections.  I will bring
this up at next week's Pacific TC call so that we can track it as
an action item.

| (4) Business Process Classification
| The classification of Business Process is not appropriately arranged.
| The classification of Business Process should be described at the top of
| section 5.2 (Business process).
| For example: Sourcing, Ordering, Fulfillment, Billing, Payment,
| Transportation, Certificate of Origin.
|
| (5) Business Process Description
| There are Business Process descriptions at section from 5.3 to 5.9. The
| contents are not united.
| The contents should contain general description, business rules, and
| corresponding business documents.
| For example: The description of the business rule and the business
documents
| have come off at Section 5.7 (Payment Collaboration).
| (6) Section 5.10 Document Types
| This table is very important.
| We want you to describe to which business process each business document
| belongs clearly. It seems that it only has to review "Use cases involved".

These would be major changes to the organization of the document
and should therefore be logged as issues to be dealt with after
the initial public review.

| (7) Section 6.3 Imported Code List Schema
| There are only 4 Code Lists at V2.0
| There were 13 Code Lists at V1.0.
| Why did the number decreased?

As noted in the index.html file, the code lists are known to be
incomplete.  We have this as a work item for the meeting this
month in Manhattan.

| (8) B.1 Library Assembly Model
| There are 3 Libraries (Common Library, Procurement Library, and
| Transportation Library).
| We would like you to explain the relation between these libraries and
| business process classification.
| For example: The Procurement Library has the common ABIEs regarding
business
| process "Sourcing, Ordering, Fulfillment, Billing, Payment". The
| Transportation Library has the common ABIEs regarding business process
| "Transportation, Certificate of Origin".

I agree that we need more explanation here.  This should be logged
as an issue to be dealt with after the initial public review.

| 2. Business Documents and Common Libraries
| We are anxious whether these business documents (especially new business
| documents) are usable in Japanese marketplace.
| We (JPLSC members) would like to evaluate these business documents for
about
| 2 or 3 month.

Our current schedule is:

 - This week (starting today): ballot the current draft as a
   Committee Draft so that we can begin the first public review

 - Next week (16 January): submit to OASIS

 - 23 January: begin 60-day public review

 - 27 March: begin comment collation and disposition

So if you begin your review of the business documents now, you
will have about 2.5 months to consider them before we begin the
revision cycle.

| 3. Others
| (1) .ods
| There are many documents named "---.ods" in UBL 2.0 review package.
| We don't know what are these files. We cannot open these document by our
| Personal Computers.
| Please tell us what these are and how to open.

These are spreadsheets in the new OASIS Standard Office Document
Format (ODF).  They can be viewed using the latest version of
OpenOffice from openoffice.org.  Note that the .ods files contain
exactly the same information as in the spreadsheets provided in
the proprietary .xls format, so you should be able to use either
format equally well.

Jon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php