[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 31 August 2005
MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING 15H00 - 17H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 31 AUGUST 2005 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Mikkel Brun Marty Burns Tony Coates Mark Crawford Mike Grimley Betty Harvey Anne Hendry Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm None. Liaison reports None. Subcommittee reports None. Team reports Code Lists -- see below. Digital Signatures -- see below. Review of Pacific and Europe/Asia calls No comments. Schedule review: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00167.html NDR (row 8) JB: We are supposed to start work on minor versioning methodology. This will be added to next week's agenda. "Minor versioning methodology" includes the question of whether to minor-version namespaces. "Finish implementation of 2.0 NDRs" (row 9) ACTION: SW to check on implementation of 2.0 NDRs per row 9 of the schedule and report back on Monday. "Load phase 1 models" (row 10) SW: Have received models from PB and am working on a script to allow BH to load them into EF. "Validate schemas" (row 29) JB: I will need to be notified when the schemas are ready. "Define and document representative extended procurement scenarios" (row 30) ACTION: PB to begin work on defining and documenting representative extended procurement scenarios per row 30 of the schedule. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION: TC members visiting NYC in October or November to check out the Sun facilities and see whether they are suitable for a UBL TC meeting. JB will be coming through in mid-November and will also check then. Pending. ACTION: MarkC to review schema import diagrams in the NDR document and update as appropriate. Pending. ACTION: JB to alert the TC that we are moving to closure on the NDR document. Done. ACTION: SW to give us a deadline for completion of a document describing our spreadsheet format to be inserted into the UBL 2.0 schedule. Pending. FOR THIS MEETING Proposed Catalogue work team AGREED to form the Catalogue work team as proposed (see Pacific minutes). NDR document revision approval MarkC: Haven't revised the diagrams yet, but the document is stable enough for tool configuration. AGREED that we will adopt the NDR draft posted 11 August as stable for purposes of schema generation. Phase 1 content model approval AGREED that we will accept the spreadsheets posted by PB 30 August for initial phase 1 schema generation in order to begin the review cycle. Code list progress JB: We are moving ahead with the direction we adopted in Ottawa, but we need to flesh it out. What is the impact on EF of the alternatives in which some CLs are just nmtoken? SW: Probably nothing significant enough to bring to your attention; will have an update Monday. Class 2 CLs were not hardcoded; they were separate modules, so not referencing them should not be a major issue. JB: I'm guessing that there will need to be changes to the NDRs, but that we can make those changes without affecting the schedule. (General agreement that this is probably the case.) TonyC: Haven't done the translation to schematron yet, just the xsd case: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200508/msg00184.html The script translates the new code form into 1.0 schema form, but haven't done all the metadata yet. JB: So this would provide a way to take the new instance form into the old XSD approach... TonyC: And also support the ACORD method. MartyB: GKH hasn't responded fully to the points raised in email. JB: So please continue that discussion. ACTION: MB to continue code list dialog with GKH. AGREED that redefine is not an appropriate technique for code lists and will not be considered further as a solution. MarkC: Continue to be opposed to this course. We should go back to enumerations in schemas and not worry about customizations. ATG is allowing union of CLs for customizers. ACTION: MarkC to send ATG paper on CLs to MB and share it with the list when that becomes possible. MarkC: Also continue to be opposed to use of substitution groups. See xml-dev posting in last couple of days regarding SGs from HenryT on Tues.... Many reports of interop problems relating to choice groups in data-binding tools. MartyB: Without a mechanism like SBs, the recipient does not know what the sender intends to be the code list. TonyC: I want a choice in how I validate it. MartyB: Yes, but not reinterpret it. Say I have my own version of EUR that has an inflation tracker built in. With SGs you have to declare that. TonyC: But in reality I would not accept that unless you told me [out of band] what your substitutions actually are. I'm not going to leave my system open and just assume that what you've sent me is OK; I will want prior notice of the change. JB: You can always lie to me; substitution groups don't prevent that. The point of referencing an ISO CL is to say that *this* is the meaning of EUR. If you change the meaning of codes instead of just adding or subtracting codes, then you lose the whole point of standard code lists. SW: Agree that the meaning of codes is significant and can have legal implications, but do we need to have complex methodologies for interpreting codes? Multiple validation passes and multiple methods of interpretation are too complex for SMEs. TonyC: We are trying to find ways to allow that as an option without making things too complicated. JB: We could look at this a different way: If we use TonyC's script to provide enum xsd versions of all the CLs, then we can say to the user, "We're giving you 1.0-style static validation, just as in UBL 1.0, and also this new two-pass method that you can use as an alternative." Can we provide both versions of the CLs while using the same document schemas? (General agreement that this appears to be the case.) JB: So aside from the extra work of explanation and packaging, doesn't this satisfy both sets of requirements? MartyB: It still doesn't satisfy the requirement to guarantee the version of the code list in the instance. There's no audit trail. MarkC: Never got the documentation of CL version in the instance as a statutory requirement in DK. UBL identified this issue for CEFACT, but we need to provide confirmation. MikkelB: Yes, it is a legal requirement that the CL version should be in the document instance. MarkC/SW: This was never a requirement in EDI. ACTION: MikkelB to provide a clear specification of what is required by law in DK regarding CLs by next week. (Returning to Marty's point) TonyC: This relates to customization; do they just edit the CL we send them and agree with their friends somehow, or do we want some more formal mechanism? JB: How can we prevent people from just changing the files? MartyB: We provide a form [substitution groups] that will encourage them to do the right thing. JB: We should continue to work on this over the coming week. If the two-pronged approach is possible, we should see whether we're willing to put in the work. TonyC: We need to define the schema format for CLs. In particular, we need MartyC's input on the requirements. MartyC: We will need everything in the current document except abstract types and substitution groups. ACTION: MartyB to provide a revised example of the enum version of the currency CL as formerly proposed but without substitution groups, by next week if possible. ACTION: TonyC to provide a script that will transform a CL instance conforming to the proposed CL schema into a schematron schema by next week. We note that MikkelB, MG, and TonyC will not be on the Atlantic call next week, and that MarkC may not be able to attend as well. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]