Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 5 April 2006

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING
15:00 - 17:00 UTC WEDNESDAY 5 APRIL 2006

ATTENDANCE

   Peter Borresen
   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Tony Coates
   Mavis Cournane
   Michael Grimley
   Betty Harvey
   Bryan Rassmussen
   Zarella Rendon
   Paul Thorpe
   Sylvia Webb

STANDING ITEMS

   Additions to the calendar:
      http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm

      None.

   Review of Pacific call

      AGREED that BH will send updated spreadsheets, including a
      final set of comments about catalogues, to SW for inclusion
      in the categorized spreadsheets.

      ACTION: JB to check with C. Michael Sperberg-McQueen and
      Murray Maloney regarding possible contacts at McGill.

SBS BALLOT

   JB/SG: Balloting has started on UBL 1.0 SBS CS.

BRUSSELS UBL TC MEETING

   JB: Note IDABC as co-host (Emilio.CASTRILLEJO@cec.eu.int).

   PB: Checked via email to hotel about room for 5/25; will follow
   up.

   MC: Note special weekend rate of 60 euros per person at the
   Argus Fri/Sat/Sun.

ACTION ITEM REVIEW

   ACTION: JB to check with Professor Kim regarding attendance in
   Brussels.

      Pending.

   ACTION: JB to enter a couple of issues not belonging to any SC.

      Done.

   ACTION: PB to check out facilities for our May meeting in
   Brussels on his visit to CEN/CENELEC 11 April.

      Pending.

   ACTION: PB to look at the NDR and say whether a change is
   needed [for the extension proposal].

      Done.

   JB: Other NDR issues?

   PB: Version is covered by ABIE instead of attribute, and that's
   OK.  But we have a requirement from uk/se/dk for a place to
   indicate which application generated an instance for debugging
   purposes.  We were told in Ottawa to use a PI.  GKH says we
   shouldn't formalize a PI into a standard, but this is an
   instruction for processors.

   JB: There doesn't seem to be another good way to do this.

   MG: This is an instance thing; it doesn't affect validation.
   The instance would still be a valid UBL document even if we
   didn't specify the PI in the NDRs.  I think this is OK between
   two trading partners.  If we're going to address this, it
   should be in "best practices" -- something non-normative.

   AGREED that we don't need to address this in the NDRs.

   JB: We can visit this again after November when we get to best
   practices.

NDR WORK SESSION

   Extension proposal:

      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200604/msg00013.html

   MG: No objection.

   MC: Comfortable with this because the extensions live in their
   own namespace.

   TC: In MDDL, people do want to use the original elements [in
   extensions] to make it clear where they are doing the same
   thing.  We originally prohibited this and then recanted.  The
   extensions are wrapped in a special element...

   JB/BR: This is what's being suggested for UBL.

   TC: We should allow the UBL children directly in the special
   element; it's the element that tells you that you have the
   extension.

   All: We're not sure why GKH wanted a non-UBL layer between the
   extension element and the UBL children.

   JB: In mail off the list, he said:

      What this means is that we can, in XSD, express "child
      elements in any non-UBL namespace" and have it throw an
      error if one of those children is in UBL.  Note that
      descendants below children may be in the UBL namespace
      ... this will allow an extension writer to take advantage of
      UBL, but still require them to wrap their extension use of
      UBL in one of their extension elements.  I'm hoping I'll be
      able to "say" this in NVDL.

   All: We could use more discussion on this point in email.

   AGREED that the document extension area should go at a high
   level, but last in the schema.

   ACTION: PB and BR to submit a more detailed proposal along
   these lines, possibly contacting MG offline; for submission
   week after next at the latest.  (Next week is the Easter
   holiday in Europe.)

   MG: What of GKH's thought about extending Party?

   BR: In dk practice it turned out that people just wanted to
   extend the document.

   AGREED that we will just specify extension at the document
   level in the 2.0 cycle and then take up the question of
   extending other pieces in future versions.

OTHER BUSINESS

   Not on the call next week: BR, PB, MC.

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC