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 20|21 February 2006

00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2006


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


   Additions to the calendar:

      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

   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

      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

      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

      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

      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.


   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

Jon Bosak

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