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 27|28 February 2006

00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2006


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


   Additions to the calendar:

      SW: X12 meetings 5-9 June 2006, Chicago; 24-29 September,

   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


      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

         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

      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

   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

      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

      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

   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

   Schedule review

      (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

      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: TM to develop a preliminary project plan for
   integrating the SBS with the 2.0 package and report back

      Sent to the TC:

   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

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