[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Minutes for Pacific UBL TC call 21|22 March 2005
Dear Tim McGrath Thank you very much for your Minutes for Pacific UBL TC call 21|22 March 2005. Your minutes says the following sentence regarding Item 6 (DeliveryContact) in CONTENT WORK SESSION. | Item 6. DeliveryContact to be a new ASBIE between Delivery and Contact. | (occurrences 0..n ??) I cannot understand the phrase 'between Delivery and Contact' clearly. My understanding of resolution regarding Item 6 is following. DeliveryContact to be a new ASBIE in Delivery (ABIE). (occurrences 0..n ??) The inserting position of the new DeliveryContact (ASBIE) will be better to be near position of the DeliveryAddress (ASBIE) in Delivery (ABIE). Is my understanding suitable? Or am I misunderstanding something? Best Regards, Yukinori Saito ------------------------------------------- Yukinori Saito Fuji Electric Information Service Co., Ltd. (FIS) e-mail: saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp Tel: +81-3-5435-7333 Fax: +81-3-5435-7513 ------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: [ubl] Minutes for Pacific UBL TC call 21|22 March 2005 MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 22 MARCH 2005 ATTENDANCE Tim McGrath(chair) Yukinori Saito Stephen Green Sylvia Webb Anne Hendry Apologies: Micah Dubinko Betty Harvey Jon Bosak STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm) - NONE Liaison reports - NONE Subcommittee reports SBSSC: SG: Need assistance with preparing documentation. beta version 2 is ready. TM: Can help with editing drafts YS: ECALGA is also a subset and perhaps they can share ideas - will liase offline {ACTION YS and SG} HISC: TM: will remind IDA about collaboration on this work. {ACTION TM} Team reports OGC/IDA: TM: Prepared combined procurement business process model for consideration by UBL TC. Moving ahead with gap analysis. OGC and IDA sharing the same approach to this. SSC CONTENT ISSUES See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200503/msg00034.html SG: UBL 1.1 extensions need to be indicated in models. SW: GEFEG cannot review the models. AH: We will need QA group (as we have in past) to do this. SG: Require a checklist of does and dont's for models. TM: Content group should prepare draft version ASAP to prototype the meta data required. This may overlap with that used by SBSSC. {ACTION TM} CONTENT WORK SESSION Unresolved questions from last week's meeting (see minutes) YS: presented items 5-8 for consideration. conclusions: Item 5. InspectionMethodCode to be an additional BBIE within LineItem. (occurences 0..1) Item 6. DeliveryContact to be a new ASBIE between Delivery and Contact. (occurrences 0..n ??) Item 7. Barcodes (and RFID codes) shuld be instances of ASBIE AdditionalItemIdentification with the precise coding mechansism stated as attributes of the code. No change to UBL 1.0. Item 8. CurrencyCode in AllowanceCharge is to cater for when no Amount is given (only a multiplier factor). In hindsight this is confusing. The preferred solution is to remove CurrencyCode from AllowanceCharge and make Amount mandatory (agrees with TaxML comments). But this has to be on the UBL 2.0 issues list as it breaks backward compatibility. UBL 1.1 recommendation is to make comments in the description of these two BBIEs to the effect that CurrencyCode is not recommended and Amount should be used in all cases to specify the currency of the allowance or charge. {ACTION All: to check other documents (eg Invoice) for similar construct} {ACTION Betty: to updated issues list and circulate prior to meeting of April 4/5} {ACTION YS: to congratuate the JPLSC for their invaluable contribution to this work} Process extensions to support IDA/OGC requirements Main concern is the resources required to support this number of new documents not the processes themselves. TM: could be broken into manageable chunks some for UBL 1.1 and some for 2.0. TM: 9 new document types to existing 9 types (error with Invoice being flagged as new). Some have UN Layout Key templates already. TM: Behind each of these already lies an OGC/IDA data model. SW: Are the data models portable? {ACTION TM: check with IDA and OGC} SW: Is this aligned with other procurement models (eg. TBG1)? TM: It is understood that IDA derive some of their input from the work of TBG1. TM: Adopting this model positions UBL for adoption by many government agencies in Europe. Some adoption is already happening in the scandanavian countries. This would make it easier. If not for present use it is a direction for the future. SG: UBL 1.1 should have a many new documents as possible to make it worthwhile. {ACTION TM to prepare a draft response to OGC/IDA that indicates our willingess to incorporate this model, the schedule being contingent on having resources from OGC/IDA to assist in the work. Draft to circulate to UBL TC for comment and approval} NEXT MEETING Pacific call schedule 5 April (4 April in the Americas). -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services (coming soon from MIT Press) http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]