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: Re: [ubl] Groups - UBL Post-Award Subcommittee Charter uploaded

Hi Ken, Kees, Tim - 

At Ken's request, I just skimmed the draft charter and the email discussion. 

The OASIS TC Process lists the following as the requirements for starting a SC: The TC creates the SC by passing a Resolution that includes its name, statement of purpose, list of deliverables, and chair.  It notes specifically that all the items must fall within the TC charter, that the deliverables from the SC are made only to the TC, and that the members of the SC must be Members of the TC. 

So there is no SC "charter" comparable to the TC charter, just the statement of purpose and list of expected deliverables. No scope, no IPR mode, etc. because those are already set in the TC charter. 

In my experience, SC resolutions are usually pretty short and general. They don't go into deep detail, the assumption being that the members all know why it is being set up. So I agree that you may be going a bit further than necessary in the current draft. 

Please let me know if you have any questions on this. 



On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:03 PM, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com> wrote:
At 2015-04-28 07:26 +0000, Duvekot, Kees wrote:
referring to "Post-Award Procurement components" in the common library could still  signal that there is a Post-Award specific "subset" within the common library model.

I disagree ... I don't think "subset" is implied.  Nothing says that a Post-Award Procurement component is not also a Pre-Award Procurement component.

I think that is not the case, and that the common library model spans the whole scope of UBL and the elements can be used by any document when relevant.

And I think anyone thinking about UBL knows that from the deliverables created with the existence of subcommittees contributing parts to the whole.

Therefor I think the SC should make a proposal to the TC for changes to the common library model ... so that the impact of that change, or the interaction between documents of other SCs can be analysed and discussed.
That will lead to better understanding across all SC's and elimination of redundant/duplicate elements in the whole library.

I don't think that is necessary, as it is implied in the modus operandi of the committee.  Note the charters state that the SC is not creating any schema, only semantic conceptual models.  And the TC process implies that subcommittees cannot make work products, only the TC as a whole.

Can not it be assumed that a reader of the subcommittee charter would know the operation of the technical committee as a whole?

I will ask TC Admin for guidance based on their experiences.

And I assume that the same is also mentioned in the Pre-Award SC charter?


. . . . . . . . Ken

Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Free 5-hour lecture:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/video.htm |
Crane Softwrights Ltd.             http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ |
G. Ken Holman                    mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com |
Google+ profile:       http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/about |
Legal business disclaimers:     http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:


Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration 
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 

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