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: 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

The UBL 1.0 SBS without the UBP is at
(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

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