[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 24|25 October 2005
MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2005 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Stephen Green Tim McGrath Andy Schoka Sylvia Webb ADMINISTRIVIA JB: Note time change next week! This Pacific call remains in the same time slot (00h30-02h30 UTC), but for callers in North America, it will *seem* to start an hour earlier. In other words: 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 16h30 - 18h30 Mon San Francisco 19h30 - 21h30 Mon New York 08h30 - 10h30 Tue Hong Kong, Singapore, Perth, Beijing 09h30 - 11h30 Tue Seoul, Tokyo 11h30 - 13h30 Tue Sydney When in doubt, plug the UTC time into the time and date service: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm No additions to the calendar. JB: How did things go at the OASIS Adoption Forum? TM: Interesting event, 50-60 people. Solid OASIS presence in Europe. Disussions with people in other OASIS TCs showed a lot of interest in UBL. UBL talk was well received. A significant panel discussion at the end with people from various standards organizations raised the question of how standards bodies coordinate their activities. Liaison report: ebBP TC SG: The TC expressed thanks for the help from UBL and is now in the process of repackaging their spec for the next public review. Subcommittee report: HISC SG: Note changes to the content model. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-hisc/200510/msg00002.html JB: Is this the first backward-incompatible semantic change? TM: Not the first, but this is a deliberate change of tag name, undertaken with some trepidation at the request of Denmark and Sweden. The definition stays the same, but there is a different tag name and DEN. [See further discussion under Subcommittee report: PSC] Subcommittee report: SBSC See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200510/msg00070.html AGREED: SBSC to make the changes noted in email by SG, and after approval by the TC, submit the revised CD for a 15-day public review of the changes. Subcommittee report: PSC TM: Will be meeting 0800 UTC Tuesday, during the Europe/Asia call at 0800 UTC Wednesday, and possibly Friday as well. Still dealing with issues, still several to go through; will be lucky to finish this week. Will probably have a set of spreadsheets that address the issues by the end of this week, then discussion and review next week, maybe editorial review; so the earliest to present draft models to EF is probably the week of 7 or maybe even 14 November. SW: With regard to recent content changes, no opposition to doing what needs to be done, but the PSC should not be making changes of this magnitude without taking them to the full TC. SG: We're not seeing minutes. I was not consulted about meeting times and therefore can't participate, and the F2Fs are not on the phone. We need more time to respond; we can't be dealing with the issues at the last minute. SW: Meeting announcements are not going out in advance; decisions are being made, but we have no clue about what was discussed and what the reasoning was. This is a source of frustration. TM: Accept criticism about lack of visibility and accountability, but we're also battling against the timetable. Would rather see that we meet the timetable and deal with feedback in public review or TC review. The need right now is for PSC to put things on paper, then we can make further changes as necessary. JB: Changes should be documented in mail. We don't want to go into public review with major disagreements already pending. TM: The changes we're talking about are not that significant. SG: The problem is that they're all lumped together. We need a change log. TM: What we need is email at the conclusion of every round of edits that notes significant changes. SG has identified a couple of issues already. (AGREED.) Subcommittee report: TSC TM: May actually overtake PSC. Very good f2f in Singapore last Thursday. AS: The wrap-up was very positive. Looks to be finishing by the end of the month. TM: Close to agreement on models in UML form before building spreadsheets, so the actual creation of spreadsheets is straightforward and will start now. TSC is still on schedule. However, we did discuss the fact that CL has been commissioned to take on the development of another three transport documents and would like them to be part of UBL 2.0. Could these be included after the public review? JB: Adding that much new content increases the odds that we will need a third public review. SG: The prospect of a more complete transport set is good news, but it will be better to get them into the first round of reviews. JB: Yes. How quickly can this be done? TM: Not within the original schedule. AGREED that the TSC should discuss the scheduling implications of adding the additional document types at its meeting 2 November and report back to the TC. Team report: Catalogue TM: Has slipped a week due to travel. The Catalogue group had its final f2f on 13 October; well attended, with additional new input from groups representing the French and Italian governments. This input has resulted in significant changes that TM must now apply to the model. The meeting also disposed of an issue regarding classification schemes; the group was going to develop those, but on being advised that this is part of the work of the TBG1 and CEN/ISSS catalogue project, have decided to use the result of that work instead (the documents such as Classification Scheme, etc.). This reduces our work but adds a dependency on theirs. The CEN/ISSS documents are scheduled for delivery next year, so we will have to add them after the first public review. We may not include them in the package, just point to them. Team report: Code Lists At this point, a very long and confusing discussion took place regarding code lists and the need for a UBL QDT module. Principal outcomes: - It appears that we are still not absolutely sure which code lists will be part of UBL 2.0, not because of questions about the categorization we arrived at in Ottawa but simply because we haven't formed a complete list. - DavidK has developed a mechanism whereby we can use the ATG2 UDT and still use code values as both attribute and element content. - If we eliminate UBL amount, we don't need a QDT or spreadsheets for QDT. But there are design reasons to not close the door on this. ACTION: SG and SW to create a UBL UDT spreadsheet that describes everything in the ATG2 UDT schema, ignoring what UBL currently has for UDT and QDT, and then create the UBL QDT using the same structure. ACTION: SG and SW to manually update the CC parameter schema. We note that creation of the UDT and QDT will require assistance from GEFEG. Review of Atlantic and Europe/Asia calls No comments. Schedule review JB: We've run out of time to discuss my message about the support package and will have to add this to the Atlantic TC agenda. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION: TM to document the spreadsheet structure and format by first week of October. This means a prose description of each column in the spreadsheets that we are now using. Changed to "first week of November." ACTION: JB to revise the UBL 2.0 schedule to separate the core 2.0 package from the informative materials. Core done; informative depends on time estimates requested in the message regarding the support package. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]