[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004
Hi Mark, To put this in context, there was a discussion of how much was still to be done with the code list sc work, and what time there was remaining. lcsc must finalize the models this week in order for other work to be completed by the F2F, and hasn't seen anything yet from clsc, so they have nothing to go on and therefore are taking a prudent step to begin tidying up what was delivered for Beta in the very probable chance that this will need to be the delivered with 1.0. During the subsequent (today's) clsc discussion, though, Sue suggested that clsc focus on completing the cl requirements for 1.0 with the idea that the cl model work would move into 2.0. That is one option, and I'm sure others can think of other options, but Sue will be proposing this option to the chairs this week, I believe. In the meantime we discussed the advisability of distributing the current draft of the clsc requirements doc at the end of the week so as to at least give lcsc a heads up so that any work they do between now and the F2F will have in mind the direction that the clsc doc requirements and other work has outlined. And the idea is to also open up a dialog with lcsc, in lieu of a completely documented model, so as to enhance the support for the eventual model (what is known of it to date) in the lcsc work for 1.0. This has yet to be done, but will probably begin next week after the chairs discussion and the release of the requirements document. Your suggestion of a meeting between clsc and lcsc at the f2f is being considered, I'm sure, as there are usually several joint sc meetings at each F2F as required by the tasks at hand Each individual sc chair has yet to put together a schedule for Jon to coordinate. Since Jon will not be back until the end of this week I'm assuming we won't see a F2F schedule before then, but should shortly thereafter. -Anne Mark Palmer wrote: > CLSC: > > Re: > "a) SP raised the issue that we probably need to clarify to what > extent, if > any, our work can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed and > reported that lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call to use the same code > list > methodology as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed and amended > where necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft statement and > circulate this in the first instance to the co-chairs." > > If the work of the CLSC is not being considered for UBL 1.0, what is > the avenue for it's inclusion? > > Will this topic be carried forward to the UBL plenary later this month? > > Has anyone seen a schedule for the UBL meeting Feb 23-27 at LMI in > McLean, VA and will there be a meeting of the CLSC with the LCSC? If > you have the schedule, please forward it. > > --Mark Palmer (just an observer in CLSC) > > >> From: "Sue Probert" <sue.probert@dial.pipex.com> >> To: <ubl-clsc@lists.oasis-open.org> >> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:52:36 -0000 >> Subject: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004 >> >> Dear all >> >> As there were only three people for most of the call today I noted the >> following informal minutes from today's call. >> >> Present: >> Sue Probert (chair) >> Anne Hendry >> Paul Spencer >> Marty Burns (last half hour) >> >> Regrets: >> Ken Holman >> Mavis Cournane >> Michael Dill >> >> Agenda: >> 1/ Review of Action List: >> TC/MHC?: To send information to MD >> MB: To modify document to cover agreed empty code list decision >> PS: to provide his new requirements in a list to the CLSC list for >> inclusion in the Requirements document >> >> 2/ Review of document status and timescales >> >> 3/ AOB >> >> Minutes: >> >> 1/ There are three remaining editing tasks to complete the Requirements >> section: >> a) MB has sent Word formatted version of the latest draft to TC and is >> awaiting his edits. MB will ask TC when this will be available. >> b) PS has sent his input to MB. MB to complete editing in these >> points asap. >> c) SP raised whether the name datamodel in the context of our >> document could >> be renamed metamodel to differentiate this from business data models. MB >> proposed that some wording changes could be introduced to clarify this >> difference. MB to propose changed text. >> >> 2/ MB will hopefully be able to complete the editing ready for internal >> circulation of teh Requirements Section in time for it to be >> discussed and >> hopefully approved on next week's call. The next stage following SC >> approval >> will be to send this to the csc for eliciting comments from the other >> scs. >> >> 3/ AOB >> >> a) SP raised the issue that we probably need to clarify to what >> extent, if >> any, our work can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed and >> reported that lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call to use the same code >> list >> methodology as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed and amended >> where necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft statement and >> circulate this in the first instance to the co-chairs. >> >> b) SP, on behalf of CN, aske MB whether he had been able to follow up >> with >> Mark Palmer with regards to input to the document. MB is to see MP >> tomorrow >> and following that he agreed to update the group with the latest >> situation. >> >> regards >> >> Sue > > > Mark E. Palmer > Building and Fire Research Laboratory > National Institute of Standards and Technology > 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8630 > Gaithersburg, MD 20899 > USA > > email: mark.palmer@nist.gov > tel: 301-975-5858 > fax: 301-975-5433 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]