Re: [ubl] Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 5 January 2010

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2010-01-06 14:47 -0500, Jon Bosak wrote:
>MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING
>TUESDAY 5 JANUARY 2010
>...
>SCHEMA GENERATION PROCESS
>
>    TM: We need to determine responsibility for checking NDR and to
>    organize workflow for schema issues, not just send separately
>    to Fulya.
>
>    JB: Reference "schema creation process" and formation of the
>    Modeling Integration Team agreed on 2009.10.27:
>
>       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200910/msg00029.html
>
>       (MIT consists of TM, AS, and PB.)
>
>    And creation of the SGTG 2009.02.23-03.02:
>
>       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200902/msg00019.html
>
>       (SGTG currently consists of GKH, Oriol, and TonyC.)
>
>    TM: Still missing responsibility for the NDR check.

Due to the extent of schema changes between 2.0 and 2.1 there cannot 
be a check against the 2.0 NDR document until the NDRs are updated 
with the 2.1 reality.  The 2.1 reality won't be known until the end 
of the debugging process.

>    BH: Can do automated NDR validation using NIST QoD tools.

Not until we have a 2.1 NDR.  The existing schemas won't match NDR 2.0.

>    AGREED as follows:
>
>     - All modeling issues to the MIT
>
>     - All (non-modeling) schema issues to SGTG
>
>     - SGTG presents issue resolutions to Fulya so that they only
>       come from one source
>
>          (Currently the only issues under this heading are the
>          ones from Oriol and some others just submitted by Finn.)

I am in receipt and have responded to Finn's questions in out-of-band 
correspondence.  I felt there were no outstanding issues as I was 
able to answer all questions, but I have not yet received Finn's 
acknowledgement of my answers.

Are the issues from Oriol limited to his parallel schema generation 
process kicking out integrity errors from the spreadsheet, or are 
there other issues to be addressed?

>     - SGTG determines NDR workflow to BH; BH uses QoD as
>       appropriate; SGTG decides what complies with NDR and advises
>       Fulya accordingly

I will soon publish a revision to the SGTG strategy based on recent 
experimentation.  Initial analysis indicates this revision is a 
candidate for debugging the schema generation and assembly process.

>    TM: It should be noted that we are not trying to create the
>    actual 2.1 schemas at this point, because the spreadsheets
>    aren't finished; this is all about debugging the schema
>    generation process.

Agreed.  Though to test the process naming conventions, the artefacts 
happen to be labelled "2.1" on the outside and their experimental 
status is indicated on the inside.

After the debugging process is complete, the artefacts will still be 
named "2.1" on the outside but will be indicated as production-level 
on the inside.

>TRACKING ITEMS
>...
>    UBL 2.1 NAMING AND DESIGN RULES
>
>       On hold till after F2F in Copenhagen.

And because of this, I believe the QoD measurements cannot be made at 
any time until this item is completed.

. . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
UBL and Code List training:      Copenhagen, Denmark 2010-02-08/10
XSLT/XQuery/XPath training after http://XMLPrague.cz 2010-03-15/19
XSLT/XQuery/XPath training:   San Carlos, California 2010-04-26/30
Vote for your XML training:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video
Video lesson:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg&fmt=18
Video overview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE&fmt=18
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal