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: Fwd: [ubl-sbsc] SBS for UBL 2

I hope folk in SBSC and the TC don't mind if I so quickly
forward this on to the TC but I'd like to get some idea of
how the TC might feel as soon as possible before progressing
things a lot more and time is pressing.

I gather we are sticking to the plan to separate the SBS and
the UBP (universal business processes, so-called) for UBL 2.

I'd appreciate an update on scheduling for these packages.
It seems they to have a separate public review but do they
have to coincide still in their finishing of their public review,
assuming things get that far, with the final stage of UBL 2
committee specification process? Is that still feasible?

All the best

Stephen Green
SBSC co-chair

----- Forwarded message from stephen.green@systml.co.uk -----
     Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:36:34 -0600
     From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk
Reply-To: stephen.green@systml.co.uk
  Subject: [ubl-sbsc] SBS for UBL 2
       To: ubl-sbsc@lists.oasis-open.org


It seems we are approaching time to start serious putting
together of the Small Business Subset for UBL 2.

I have started a more serious draft of the content, basing
it on three or four principles

1. keep closely to the same semantic and functional limits of
the UBL 1 SBS
- this minimises changes to just those below

2. adapt tha above to align with UBL 2, to help ensure minimal
opportunites for data loss when translating instances between
UBL 1 SBS and UBL 2 SBS (some elements in UBL 1 SBS are missing
from UBL 2 and vice versa)
- this leads to removal of certain elements

3. include where appropriate changes proposed in comments,
particularly those detailed comments just received from JPLSC
(remembering scope factors)
- this leads to new inclusions
Thanks JPLSC

4a. taking on board Ken's recent comments that we try to align
the document type subsets to all use the same library subset
- this leads to some changes
4b. again from Ken's comment, try to produce a set of schema
files which we might be able tyo consider actually publishing
as part of the SBS package
Thanks Ken

With this in mind I have a draft spreadsheet, set of instances
and set of schema files covering, so far, the same documents as
those in UBL 1.0. I'm trying to think what to call it: something
like 'draft-UBL-2.0-SBS-1.0-InitialProcurement'
and then the extended procurement documents could be called
something like 'draft-UBL-2.0-SBS-1.0-ExtendedProcurement'.

I have a bit of a feeling that we may need to produce a second
minor or major version of the UBL 1.0 SBS. This is for a few
1. minor errors in the committee spec (not affecting the normative
files though)
2. main reason: to have a version for folk to use with UBL 1.0
which better aligns with UBL 2, now that we have a good idea what
UBL 2 will include (there would be reason to remove some elements
such as those not found in UBL 2 and the same four points as above
could all be included).

Any thoughts?

One downside is that already this could fragment implementations.

I have done a fair bit of work on it as I've prepared a content
model for the UBL 2 SBS (it was really a prerequisit to the design).

How are our timescale factors looking. I need a fair bit of time
to work some more on the content draft but perhaps days or weeks.

All the best

Stephen Green

----- End forwarded message -----

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