[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 20|21 February 2006
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2006 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Stephen Green G. Ken Holman Tim McGrath (vice chair) Andy Schoka Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm 8 March in Hong Kong: Forum on electronic transaction development (Thomas Lee, Tim McGrath) Liaison report: ebBP TC SG: ebBP TC is ok with breaking out the process definitions for UBL 2.0 as a separate deliverable. (See last week's Pacific call.) Subcommittee report: SBSC SG: 1.0 SBS public review is now finished. No comments were received. We may need to make minor editorial changes to the BPSS definitions. JB: Time to go to committee spec. SG: Have now produced two separate packages for UBL 2 SBS and am waiting for finishing touches to the BPSS definition and CPA package from Sacha Schlegel. JB: Sacha must become a TC member to join the SBSC. SG: It's time to put the 2.0 SBS into intial public review. AS: Does the SBS include transport? SG: No, that would be out of scope for a [procurement oriented] subset. We could make another subset by taking the SBS and adding to it the elements that transport would need, using the same methodology. AS/SG/TM: Let's call the current SBS "UBL 1.0 SBS for procurement" and create a "UBL 2.0 SBS for procurement" and a "UBL 2.0 SBS for export." ACTION: TM to develop a preliminary project plan for integrating the SBS with the 2.0 package and report back 2/28. Liaison report: UN/CEFACT JB: Call scheduled for 2/23. We need to know CEFACT's plan for integrating UBL as a CEFACT specification into the ODP process. TM: CEFACT is apparently trying to deal with ODP-related issues separate from UBL. JB: Expect to learn more about this 2/23. Subcommittee report: HISC GKH: Denmark not in the meeting last week, so could not proceed. We need sample instances to demonstrate formatting specifications. We did get an Order sample from SG, but we need at least the other seven [in the 1.0 set]. We did get a list of doc types of interest to dk in an HISC posting. Team report: Code Lists GKH: Have just posted what I think are the February deliverables for Code Lists, including lines 5 and 11 on the support materials schedule using the January data models. The support schedule is missing line items for (1) code list contributions to NDR and (2) the UBL specification of genericode 0.3. GKH is the only responsible party for lines 5 and 11, both of which were delivered today. The missing NDR contributions belong to TonyC and MartyB; the missing line item for the formalization of gc 0.3 belongs to TonyC. Ken Sall has presented on this code list methodology at SAIC, and others outside of UBL are interested as well. The TC should review the methodology just posted. I'm now stepping away from CL and moving on to HISC. JB: Please express our heartfelt thanks to Kathryn for supporting you in this work. Subcommittee report: PSC, TSC TM: The spreadsheets in the PRD have invalidly populated columns for SBS on the right; these will be removed for final publication. They will still be in the spreadsheets included in the SBS package. Review of Atlantic call SW: MG's quote of the statement regarding ATG2 UDT arrived at in Manhattan confirms my initial impression. Now we need UBL rules for creation of UDT datatypes and QDT, that is, rules to implement the UDT. Once you import the schema, what do you do with it? Lacking rules, GEFEG can create a workaround, but it will require considerable programming, and we can't guarantee to meet the schedule. ... These are rules that were originally in UBL 1.0 NDR but were taken out when we decided to use ATG2 UDT; now that we've decided not to use the ATG2 methodology, those rules need to be replaced. ACTION: SW to identify the 1.0 rules corresponding to the ones that need to be put into 2.0 NDR in time for this week's Atlantic call. Schedule review http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00066.html AS: What's the meaning of the continuation at the end of the initial 2.0 public review? JB: It means that we are accepting input from UN/CEFACT TBG1 and TBG3 following the meeting in Vancouver. TG: We expect that input to be informal resulting from interactions at the meeting. AS: What about issues that are not specifically about procurement or transport content? TM: Those become general issues for the TC. Issues review http://www.eccnet.com/UniversalBusinessLanguage/IssuesList.xml JB: What do we have in mind for this standing item? TM: We should use it to ask whether there are non-domain-specific issues discovered by the SCs that should be added to the issues list. MEETINGS DURING THE UN/CEFACT FORUM From the Atlantic call 2006.02.08: JB: (Regarding meetings during the March UN/CEFACT Forum) Atlantic calls 3/8, 3/15, and 3/22 will occur as scheduled and will be chaired by MC if JB and TM are not available. We may cancel the Pacific calls. Discussion: The weeks of 3/7, 3/13, and 3/22 are not good for most regular Pacific call participants. AGREED: We will not hold Pacific TC calls the weeks of 3/7, 3/13, and 3/22. We will hold Atlantic TC calls those weeks (as agreed above) but will designate those as "work sessions" rather than official TC meetings since people won't have an opportunity to dial in to the Pacific calls to maintain voting membership. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]