[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: [ubl-sbsc] SBS for UBL 2
I hope folk in SBSC and the TC don't mind if I so quickly forward this on to the TC but I'd like to get some idea of how the TC might feel as soon as possible before progressing things a lot more and time is pressing. I gather we are sticking to the plan to separate the SBS and the UBP (universal business processes, so-called) for UBL 2. I'd appreciate an update on scheduling for these packages. It seems they to have a separate public review but do they have to coincide still in their finishing of their public review, assuming things get that far, with the final stage of UBL 2 committee specification process? Is that still feasible? All the best Stephen Green SBSC co-chair ----- Forwarded message from stephen.green@systml.co.uk ----- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:36:34 -0600 From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk Reply-To: stephen.green@systml.co.uk Subject: [ubl-sbsc] SBS for UBL 2 To: ubl-sbsc@lists.oasis-open.org Folks It seems we are approaching time to start serious putting together of the Small Business Subset for UBL 2. I have started a more serious draft of the content, basing it on three or four principles 1. keep closely to the same semantic and functional limits of the UBL 1 SBS - this minimises changes to just those below 2. adapt tha above to align with UBL 2, to help ensure minimal opportunites for data loss when translating instances between UBL 1 SBS and UBL 2 SBS (some elements in UBL 1 SBS are missing from UBL 2 and vice versa) - this leads to removal of certain elements 3. include where appropriate changes proposed in comments, particularly those detailed comments just received from JPLSC (remembering scope factors) - this leads to new inclusions Thanks JPLSC 4a. taking on board Ken's recent comments that we try to align the document type subsets to all use the same library subset - this leads to some changes 4b. again from Ken's comment, try to produce a set of schema files which we might be able tyo consider actually publishing as part of the SBS package Thanks Ken With this in mind I have a draft spreadsheet, set of instances and set of schema files covering, so far, the same documents as those in UBL 1.0. I'm trying to think what to call it: something like 'draft-UBL-2.0-SBS-1.0-InitialProcurement' and then the extended procurement documents could be called something like 'draft-UBL-2.0-SBS-1.0-ExtendedProcurement'. I have a bit of a feeling that we may need to produce a second minor or major version of the UBL 1.0 SBS. This is for a few reasons 1. minor errors in the committee spec (not affecting the normative files though) 2. main reason: to have a version for folk to use with UBL 1.0 which better aligns with UBL 2, now that we have a good idea what UBL 2 will include (there would be reason to remove some elements such as those not found in UBL 2 and the same four points as above could all be included). Any thoughts? One downside is that already this could fragment implementations. I have done a fair bit of work on it as I've prepared a content model for the UBL 2 SBS (it was really a prerequisit to the design). How are our timescale factors looking. I need a fair bit of time to work some more on the content draft but perhaps days or weeks. All the best Stephen Green ----- End forwarded message -----
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]