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 Atlantic UBL TC call 19 April 2006

15:00 - 17:00 UTC WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL 2006


   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Jamie Clark
   Tony Coates
   Mavis Cournane
   Stephen Green
   Betty Harvey
   Tim McGrath (vice chair)
   Sylvia Webb


   Review of Pacific call

      No comments.

   Schedule review

      SW: BR sent mail about action items; wasn't able to get to
      them.  Concerned that these AIs don't get pushed back




   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

    - 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

   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.


   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: 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

      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.


   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.


   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.


   TM will chair next week's Pacific TC call.

Jon Bosak

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