[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 27|28 February 2006
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING
00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2006
ATTENDANCE
Jon Bosak (chair)
Stephen Green
G. Ken Holman
Tim McGrath (vice chair)
Andy Schoka
Kumar Sivaraman
Sylvia Webb
STANDING ITEMS
Additions to the calendar:
http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm
SW: X12 meetings 5-9 June 2006, Chicago; 24-29 September,
Boston.
Liaison report: Tax XML TC
SW: ML reported that the indirect taxation groups discussed
SG's spreadsheet in detail and the possible extension of the
project work in the future. They hope to form a team and
begin work in the next 1-2 weeks.
Subcommittee report: SBSC
We spent some time reviewing the SBSC deliverables and
working up a possible time line for 2.0 SBS in light of TM's
message:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00096.html
1.0 SBS
Has been through its second public review. SG has made a
lot of minor changes, including updating version numbers
in the process definition files. None of these changes
appear to be Substantive Changes according to the
definition in the most current OASIS TC process. No
comments were received during the public comment period.
ACTION: SG to post the public URL for the final 2.0 SBS
package.
ACTION: JB to request OASIS to set up the ballot for
approval of 2.0 SBS as an OASIS Committee Specification.
2.0 UBP (modular business processes for each document)
UBP is "universal business processes"; name was suggested
by Sacha Schlegel. We will have "UBP 2 for procurement"
and "UBP 2 for transport." SG has produced a nearly
complete working draft for UBL 2 for procurement.
2.0 SBS (etc.)
AGREED that the sample instances for UBL 2.0 should be
taken from 2.0 SBS for procurement and that these should
form the basis for sample instances illustrating
transport. The idea is for all the samples to
demonstrate the same use cases (so that the example party
data used in an example Waybill, e.g., should be the same
as that used in the example Invoice).
The pieces are mutually dependent, so the actual
development process is apt to be somewhat iterative.
Nonetheless, we have to begin an initial public review of
2.0 SBS and UBP for procurement in order to get past the
60-day review period. Then we will create "meaningful
example instances" for procurement and use those to
create the equivalent sample transport docs.
Preliminary timeline
- PSC makes procurement examples with input from SBSC
(working from the SBS package); it is hoped that ML and
PB can spend some of their time in Vancouver working on
this, for example by performing a gap analysis between
the existing procurement samples and the ones in the 2.0
SBS for procurement.
- TSC then makes examples that integrate with the PSC
examples, using the same sample data where possible to
illustrate complete use cases.
- At this point, we judge whether it makes sense to form a
2.0 SBS for transport. If so, we create three more
schedule lines: 2.0 SBS for transport (following an
initial prototype); UBP 2 for procurement; and UBP 2 for
transport.
ACTION: JB to fit this into the support package schedule
(adding lines for PSC example instances, TSC example
instances, 2.0 SBS for transport, UBP 2 for procurement, UBP
2 for transport).
ACTION: JB to ballot 2.0 SBS for procurement and UBP 2 for
procurement.
Liaison report: UN/CEFACT
TM: We spent a lot of time in the call last week discussing
the difficulties CEFACT is having with using the Open
Development Process to recognize externally developed
standards. OASIS is supposed to submit a statement
detailing what we want in time for another call on Thursday.
Subcommittee report: HISC
GKH: No meeting Tuesday, but clarified some input goals with
Bryan via email. JB was contacted by folks at the Open
Document Foundation who are interested in using UBL as an
exemplar for XForms; have pulled BR into that conversation.
We hope to have two implementations, one by BR and one from
OpenDoc, but haven't heard back from them yet. On the
output side, working on a method to generate the forms from
abstract specifications. So we have a game plan, it's just
a matter of finding the cycles.
Team report: Code Lists
GKH: TonyC is back from vacation; an assumption about empty
genericode instances turns out to be incorrect, and am now
working out a way around that.
SW: We have been getting questions about code lists. Some
companies cannot implement the new Code List Methodology;
they will use the same method of code list checking that
they use for EDI and want to know if this is a
customization.
JB: In other words, their software can't apply different
code list subsets to different document contexts, and they
want to know whether it's still UBL 2.0 compliant?
SW: Yes.
JB/GKH/SG: "UBL 2.0 compliance" means compliance to the UBL
2.0 schemas. Since we externalize most code value checking
in 2.0, any method of code value checking is "UBL 2.0
compliant." The Code List Methodology will be a separate
specification that can be applied to any set of schemas, not
just UBL. So they will not be "UBL Code List Methodology
compliant" but they will be "UBL 2.0 compliant."
SG: There may be a concern about compliance with the UBL 2.0
NDRs.
JB: Only if they are designing their own schemas and
referencing UBL 2.0 NDR as a separate specification.
Obviously they can't be using our schemas and be in conflict
with our NDRs (unless we've made a mistake).
AGREED: We need to make sure that mandatory support for the
UBL Code List Methodology is not hardwired into the UBL 2.0
NDRs.
Subcommittee report: PSC
SW: Reviewed issues list; ML will be sending questions to JB
and SG. We should identify work to be done in Vancouver.
Subcommittee report: TSC
AS: Nothing to report this week.
Review of Atlantic call
SW: We will not be submitting any further requirements for
NDR, so DavidK will not be sending the detailed explanation
referred to in the Atlantic minutes. After discussion with
MichaelD and DavidK, it appears that we have always written
our own rules for converting data models to schema and will
continue to do so.
SG: Will the version attribute be in the schemas?
SW: DavidK just received the latest NDR checklist [and will
be working on that].
JB: Have not yet logged this in the issues list, but please
remember to change instances of "2005" in the copyright to
"2006".
Schedule review
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00016.html
(Regarding the extension proposal from BR)
GKH: The way to extend UBL is by allowing the arbitrary use
of non-UBL namespaces in UBL instances and applying NVDL,
the JTC1 Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language.
This is Part 4 of ISO/IEC 19757, which is at FDIS and will
soon be an ISO/IEC standard; see dsdl.org. Will suggest
this to BR.
JB: So we can stick in anything using the DSDL notion of
"valid"...
GKH: No, when you extract the UBL [using NVDL], it's valid
UBL.... Like embedding SVG in XHTML.
JB: Which was the whole intent of namespaces from the
beginning. This is what TimBL wanted in the first place!
I'm much more comfortable with this approach than with ANY.
ACTION ITEM REVIEW
ACTION: TM to develop a preliminary project plan for
integrating the SBS with the 2.0 package and report back
2/28.
Sent to the TC:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00096.html
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.
Closed (see under "Review of Atlantic call" above).
Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]