[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 19 April 2006
MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING 15:00 - 17:00 UTC WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL 2006 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Jamie Clark Tony Coates Mavis Cournane Stephen Green Betty Harvey Tim McGrath (vice chair) Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Review of Pacific call No comments. Schedule review http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200602/msg00107.html SW: BR sent mail about action items; wasn't able to get to them. Concerned that these AIs don't get pushed back further. UN/UBL PROPOSAL See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200604/msg00049.html JB: Here are the salient points: - This is the highest level of UN recognition that we (or apparently anyone) can get right now. - The question is, is it enough to do us any good with adoptions? - Under the proposal, this TC would continue; we have at least another couple of years of work ahead of us in localizing and deploying UBL 2. - The proposed agreement does not prevent us from releasing minor versions (and therefore adding document types as long as we maintain backward compatibility), and it does not prevent us from seeking further recognition from international standards bodies. - The agreement would provide a framework for working with TBG WGs and help alleviate concerns over competition. - If the level of recognition in the proposed agreement is enough so satisfy the requirements of our government stakeholders, then I think we should go ahead with this. SW: Under what conditions would there be UBL work that would be considered for 3.x? TM: We wouldn't be allowed to work on 3.x in OASIS; that would have to be done as part of CEFACT. E.g., PSC plan to work with TBG1 to push the UBL position in TBG1 work, and that could influence the future products of TBG1. JB: But if what we're doing in 2.x is useful to CEFACT, they can use it under terms of the agreement, and we can (I believe) use anything of theirs under generic terms of UN IPR. SW: If we decided to move forward with this, there are other TCs in OASIS -- Tax XML, Legal XML -- and external entitites that want to know how to develop UBL documents that are CEFACT compliant. JB/TM: The proposed agreement does not contain a concept of CEFACT compliance. SW: If we cannot provide a clear path for how groups [using UBL] can achieve CEFACT compliance, they will go to CEFACT. TM: Clause 2(a) of the proposal covers this ["Future UN/CEFACT deliverables constitute the upgrade path for UBL"]. AGREED that we think we can agree to the proposal, but we need to hear from Northern European and Asian stakeholders as to whether the recognition for UBL of which UN/CEFACT is capable satisfies government requirements for adoption. We want to come to a final decision on this in the TC meetings scheduled for next week (the week of 24 April 2006). ACTION: Northern European, Asian, and other government stakeholders need to tell us this week whether the level of recognition seen in the draft agreement is enough to make them feel comfortable moving ahead with UBL 2 adoption. BRUSSELS UBL TC MEETING The two main agenda items will be: - finish comment disposition - generate schemas TM: Now that we have a complete set of NDRs, we can produce a new set of schemas to test the minor versioning system... We hope to come into Brussels with a new set of spreadsheets loaded into FX and have most comments settled by then. MC: Phone calls? TM: Might want to schedule a morning session for review/education around content issues. ACTION: MC to contact LSCs for reports. ACTION: JB to generate a meeting schedule template. AGREED that we should try to put presentations from our hosts on the agenda: one by Emilio on IDABC (or on eProcurement in Europe), and one from Alain on CEN/ISSS (or on eCommerce standardization in Europe). We should also get a presentation from the Northern European UBL group. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION: JB to check with C. Michael Sperberg-McQueen and Murray Maloney regarding possible contacts at McGill. MC: Tried cmsmcq; no luck. Will check some contacts. ACTION: JB to check with Professor Kim regarding attendance in Brussels. MC: Have been in contact with him. ACTION: PB to check out facilities for our May meeting in Brussels on his visit to CEN/CENELEC 11 April. Pending. ACTION: PB and BR to submit a more detailed extension proposal possibly contacting MG offline; for submission the week of 17 April at the latest. MC: Got mail on this; expecting to see it later this week. NDR WORK SESSION AGREED that next week's Atlantic call will focus on the (expected) extension proposal. MC will chair. TM/SG: Additional code lists need to be finalized before the meeting in Brussels. This is on the AI list for the TSC. TC: Have added metadata in genericode 0.4. JB: Good, this takes care of a Pacific TC AI. ACTION: TM/SG to look into the definition of mandatory info for code lists in schemas and report back next week whether/what needs to be conveyed for FX programming. OTHER BUSINESS TM will chair next week's Pacific TC call. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]