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 Pacific UBL TC call 13|14 February 2006

00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2006


   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Stephen Green
   G. Ken Holman
   Tim McGrath (vice chair)
   Andy Schoka
   Kumar Sivaraman
   Sylvia Webb


   Additions to the calendar:


   Liaison report: Tax XML TC

      SW: The TC is meeting in london next week, but I cannot

   Liaison report: ebBP TC

      SG: Can we publish the BPSS definitions for UBL separately
      from the SBS?  The definitions allow implementation of UBL
      in an ebXML framework; each UBL doc has one or more
      processes associated with it, and vice versa.  The
      definitions for 1.0 are in the UBL 1.0 SBS package, but now
      they've become a deliverable in their own right.

      AGREED (pending concurrence by the Atlantic call) to publish
      the BPSS process definitions for UBL as a separate

   Subcommittee report: SBSC

      SG: Nothing new to report.  Will take the ebBP work [above]
      into SBSC; have pretty much everything needed for 2.0 SBS,
      and have already published a worst-case version that could
      be used if we do nothing else.

   Liaison report: UN/CEFACT

      JB: The conference call formerly scheduled for 3/16 is being

   Liaison report: X12 meeting in Seattle

      KS: Dick Raman spoke; there was much talk about
      harmonization, but nothing specific.  COTG is being renamed
      the "Harmonization and Outreach Task Group."  X12 has given
      up on convergence and is now just trying for semantic
      harmonization.  The main X12 activities are now in
      healthcare and insurance.  There are opportunities for
      harmonization in other industry segments.

      SW: There was discussion of X12 replacing the existing
      repository with an ebXML repository.  Also a high level
      discussion of how X12 could use the TBG17 library and CCTS
      methodology.  Dan Kazzaz will be speaking in Vancouver.

      KS/SW: X12 membership is increasing; attendance at the
      meeting was 527+.

   Subcommittee report: HISC

      GKH: Call tomorrow; trying to determine how much more we can
      do beyond the eight UBL 1.0 docs.

   Team report: Code Lists

      GKH: About to send results of analysis; have determined
      algorithmically that there are about 6 types and info items
      that are not used in UBL.  Plugging away on generation of
      empty gc files for all of the code lists, plus one
      association file for each doc and one across all docs.  Lots
      of calculation.  The code list proposal is gaining quite a
      bit of traction on xml-dev; insurance and mortgage think
      they could use our approach.  TonyC has given permission to
      include 0.3 gc in the Code List spec.

   Subcommittee report: PSC

      SW: In a holding pattern, PB on vacation next week.  We will
      start looking at his work next week.

   Subcommittee report: TSC

      AS: We're developing some text-based use case descriptions
      for transport messages that may provide a prototype for how
      to define messages; our next meeting is this week.  Also, we
      recognize that the issues list is something the TSC should
      be keeping an eye on in deciding what needs to be attended
      to following the public review.

      TM: Some of the isses are questions rather than comments;
      there's no way to log questions separate from comments.

      AS: For example, "How do we get clarification on..."

      JB: I consider most requests for clarification to be
      comments to the effect that we haven't explained something
      adequately.  E.g., "Issue: it's not clear why..." or "It's
      not clear how..."  The TSC and PSC are expected to be
      monitoring the issues list and starting work on resolving
      the issues, including going back to the submitters and
      asking for further details.  From the meeting in Manhattan:

         AGREED that we will password-protect the issues input
         form (TC members can use the form, but all others must
         use the OASIS public comment form).  There will be a
         column/field for category (NDR, PSC, TSC, HISC, SBS1,
         SBS2, Code lists) and another one for priority (bug,
         missing functionality, new requirements (RFEs)).  We will
         try to process issues as they come in, with those clearly
         belonging to PSC handled by PSC, etc., and preliminary
         dispositions recorded in a separate resolution list.

      But questions needing clarification before the review can
      continue pose a special problem.

      AGREED that requests for clarification from the USDOT will
      be collated and forwarded by AS to the appropriate SC.

      AGREED (pending concurrence in the Atlantic call) that SG
      will fill the position of Inquiry Coordinator so that
      questions submitted during the review period get forwarded
      to the appropriate SC or the TC as a whole.

   Review of Atlantic call

      JB: Apologies for not having the Atlantic minutes done yet.

   Schedule review

      SG: Given the scheduling of the Brussels F2F, we will have
      to be generating schemas right at the meeting.


   We reviewed mail received regarding preferences for the meeting
   in Brussels.

   AGREED (pending concurrence in the Atlantic call) to go with
   the week of 22 May 2006 at CEN/CENELEC in Brussels.

   TM/GKH: This means that we will have to wind up all the
   post-review processing and actually start generating schemas at
   that meeting.  Finalization of the code lists also depends on
   final schemas.

   SW: We can't get new schemas till we get the [revised] NDR, and
   there's a good possibility that with the decision to not adopt
   ATG2 NDR, we will have more than a few minor bug fixes.  We are
   missing rules for UBL to implement the ATG2 schema module; if
   we're using ATG2 rules, then TSC and PSC will have to redesign
   their messages to comply with those rules.  (ACTION: SW to send
   a pointer to the ATG rules on UDTs, QDTs, and code lists.)  UBL
   needs to create its own set of NDRs to cover those points
   listed in email:


   Until this is resolved, GEFEG is very worried about meeting the

   (Discussion continues below under CODE LIST DECLARATIONS)


   How do we go about obtaining "accreditation" from local tax agencies?


      SW: ML will be attending a Tax XML meeting to discuss this.

      JB: So let's see what looks possible.




   JB: The suggestion is to just adopt "UID."

   SG/TM: That's what we meant; not a standard UUID or GUID, just
   something that was globally unique within a given

   AGREED (pending concurrence in the Atlantic call) to change
   GUID to UID and make the definition for UID the one that's
   currently given for GUID.




   We note that TonyC and MartyB were assigned the task of writing
   the NDRs for code lists.  This must be added to the NDR items
   of work.

   A long, confused discussion took place in which the following
   points became more or less clear:

    - We don't need rules that tell people how to implement the
      ATG rules, because we're not adopting the ATG methodology,
      just the schemas.  We don't want to generate the ATG code
      list schemas, we just want to import them.

    - This presents a problem for FX (nee EDIFIX) because the ATG
      code list schemas are generated from the ATG data models
      based on the ATG NDRs; the version of FX that's programmed
      to support UBL doesn't know how to just import a given

    - We must minute the position that we don't want rules to
      execute the UDT, we just want to import the schema at schema
      generation time.  That is, by our decision in Manhattan
      stated as "AGREED that in the interests of convergence we
      will stand by our decision to import the ATG2 UDT, etc." we
      need to add that this does NOT mean that we are going to
      apply the ATG2 RULES (in which case we may need more rules
      to cover this).

    - The current SDT is actually UBL's QDT.  It is possible that
      at some point we will have to handcraft a QDT for UBL.

   ACTION: JB to put the issue on this week's Atlantic agenda.


   AGREED that the PSC and TSC should review each other's data
   models.  ACTION: TM to suggest this to the two SCs.

   AGREED that the code list package currently under construction
   will initially be based on the schemas in the PRD.

Jon Bosak

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