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 Pacific UBL TC call 18 April 2011


MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING MONDAY 18 APRIL 2011

ATTENDANCE

    Jon Bosak (chair)
    G. Ken Holman
    Tim McGrath (vice chair)
    Andy Schoka

STANDING ITEMS

    Additions to the calendar:
       http://ubl.xml.org/events

       None.

    Review of Atlantic call minutes

       No comments.

UBL 2.1 PRD2 STATUS

    PSC (TM): The group will be meeting Tuesday.

    TSC (AS): Sent revised examples from Audun.

    SGTG (GKH): In the process of renaming the examples and adding them
    to the collection; but there are still changes being made to the
    schemas.  Will test as soon as the last changes have been made by
    Arianna.  An issue remains from Arianna's post:

       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201104/msg00016.html

    The problem is that both 2.0 and 2.1 have a "transport contract," but
    the two versions have very different content.  We have to keep the
    old transport contract for backward compatibility, so the new one
    will need to be renamed.

       ACTION: AS and TM to schedule a TSC meeting; TSC to rename the new
       transport contract and revise examples accordingly.

    GKH: Also, there is still one non-ASCII character left (in the
    Examples column of one of the spreadsheets) whose removal requires a
    programming change in eDoCreator.

       ACTION: SRDC to make the necessary change.

    GKH: There have been user questions about a start date for RFQs.

       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/201104/msg00000.html
       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/201104/msg00001.html
       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/201104/msg00002.html
       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/201104/msg00003.html

    TM: The issue is whether we want to expand RFQ to look like RFP; the
    difference is in the formality of the process.  An RFQ usually comes
    after an RFP and is more specific; an RFQ does not usually lead into
    tendering, whereas an RFP does -- but this is different in different
    countries.

       ACTION: JB to put this on next week's agenda.

UBL 2.1 PRD2 DOCUMENTATION

    Reviewing questions posted 4 April:

       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201104/msg00005.html

    1. In PRD2, we said we were going to add two new information items:

       <member>AllowanceCharge within ItemLocationQuantity</member>
       <member>VersionID in DocumentReference</member>

       Did we do that?

          Answer: We think we did.

       Which other information items did we add in PRD2?

       ACTION: GKH to add a list of changes to the SGTG model. This check
       should also be used to update the list of corrected DENs.

    2. In PRD3, we expect to be adding two more document types,
       GoodsItemItinerary and TransportServiceDescription.  What
       new information items do we expect to add in PRD3?

          AGREED that we won't attempt a detailed prediction this time
          around.

    3. From PRD1:

        Other changes expected in PRD2:

        Addition of document-wide signature elements to the five document
        types that currently lack them: (CallForTenders, CatalogueRequest,
        ContractAwardNotice, ContractNotice, PriorInformationNotice)

     Did we do this?

        Answer: We did.

UBL 2.1 DIGITAL SIGNATURE PROFILE

    JB: Have received detailed answers from Andrea; will process
    beginning Wednesday 20 April.

UBL 2.1 MODELING ISSUES

    From last week:

    "ACTION (3/1): TM to investigate whether we can formalize JB's
    suggestion to create a script or even just a manually applied formula
    to the ASBIE definitions and report findings."

    Discussion: This will mean unloading and reloading all of the
    spreadsheets.  Is the benefit worth the effort?

       AGREED to add consideration of this item to the work agenda for
       the meeting in Ankara.

    (Continuing from last week's minutes:) "Aside from the ASBIE
    definitions, other incomplete or inadequately specified definitions
    may lead to "tag abuse" (the tendency to substitute an incorrect tag
    when the correct one is not easily found or easily understood).  On
    the other hand, a thorough revision would require the full attention
    of business experts and could take years.  We need further discussion
    and input from PSC and TSC to resolve this dilemma."

    TM: You will get tag abuse anyway; as in law, there are no
    unchallengeable definitions, and a large-scale revision would be a
    massive exercise.  [There are over 2000 definitions in UBL 2.1.]

       AGREED that a review of the definitions belongs to some phase of
       the effort following the release of UBL 2.1.  There is a
       dependency between this and the translation work; perhaps it's
       time to involve the ontologists again.

ANKARA MEETING PREPARATION

    TM: Will shift the opening plenary to 15:00 Monday in Ankara.

TC CONCALL SCHEDULE

    Week of 2011.04.25 Regular schedule
    Week of 2011.05.02 Regular schedule
    Week of 2011.05.09 Regular schedule - missing AS
    Week of 2011.05.16 Regular schedule
    Week of 2011.05.23 >>> TRAVEL TO ANKARA <<<
    Week of 2011.05.30 >>> MEETING IN ANKARA <<<
    Week of 2011.06.06 >>> TRAVEL FROM ANKARA <<<

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC


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