[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: UBP 1.0 separate from UBL 1.0 SBS ?
The UBL 1.0 small business subset is nearing ballot stage for progress to committee specification and now might not be the best time to be thinking of a change to it but I wonder if there would be process problems with splitting the package into two to match what we have with the separate UBL 2 SBS and UBP 2.0 packages. I've tried this out:- The UBP 1.0 proposed draft cs package is at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=17039&wg_abbrev=ubl-sbsc The UBL 1.0 SBS without the UBP is at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=17038&wg_abbrev=ubl-sbsc (draft #3) The reason is that there is a dependency for the UBP on ebBP (which is nearing cs status) but there is no such dependency for the SBS. If there are changes needed to the UBP as ebBP is finalised, it would be convenient to be able to hold the UBP progress until everything is settled. Comments appreciated. There may be a problem with the progress of the UBP directly to ballot as candidate committee specification in that it only underwent the second UBL-1.0-SBS public review (15 days) and has not had a review as a standalone draft. If it does need to complete a 50 day review to be allowed to progress to committee specification ballot, how about we package it together with the UBP 2.0 which is at the stage of waiting for a vote to become a committee draft and public review draft. Perhaps the two would then be called UBP 1.0 and be packaged as one set of ebXML artifacts covering both UBL 1.0 and UBL 2. All the best Stephen Green