UBL LCSC Minutes

Tuesday - 5 November 2002

Attendees: Jon Bosak, Sally Chan, Mark Guenthart, Tim McGrath, Bill Meadows, Sue Probert, Marion Royal, Lisa Seaburg, Gunther Stuhec, Peter Yim, Monica J. Martin

1. Welcome from Chair and appointment of Secretary to take minutes - Monica to take minutes.

2. Acceptance of previous minutes (from Oct 29th and Oct 22nd) - Accepted.

3. Revised Work Plan

Notes from discussion:

4. Release 0p70

5. QA Team report

6. Reports on status of other UBL subcommittees

7. Reports on status of other related projects - Deferred until next week, not enough time.

8. Other Business - Other agenda items: Defer.

Next Meeting - 12 November 2002, same phone number and time.

Appendix - Mike's Issues Email

I feel that it would be useful for people to have a view of this, and look at it, prior to any teleconference today. There are one or two observations that I am coming to that worry me:-

  1. The new spreadsheet still seems more oriented towards Order than it should be, as a library of re-usable components for all trade cycle documents.
  2. The alphabetic sequencing is nice BUT it makes before-&-after comparison very difficult. It might have been better to await a better tool than a spreadsheet. Then it occurred to me that if the UBL UIDs are generated from the alpha sequenced list, they will immediately get out of neat sequence through later additions throughout the alphabetic range, and so what was the point?
  3. We seem to be applying a specialising rule in someplaces and a generalising rule elsewhere, which suggests the need to identify what the criteria are for doing things differently! At the moment I feel we are on rapidly shifting sands. Examples are:-
    1. specialisation principle gives Transport Equipment and Item Measurements
    2. generalisation of 'ItemIdentifier' from 'Buyer-', 'Seller-', 'Manufacturer-' and 'Standard-' '-ItemIdentifier' which differentiated UBL's scenario from EAN's
    3. generalisation which has lost 'ReceivingContact', 'ShippingContact' and 'OrderContact'
  4. If one follows the specialisation principle slavishly as is done with Equipment and Item Measurements, then what is to stop one also having specialised Parties such as BuyerParty, SellerParty etc?
  5. The parent-child relationship problem. In the spreadsheet we are now showing 'where used' and not 'what is used' as we were before. I think it is less useful in its present form. Also I believe the change is inconsistently applied; examples are:-
    1. 'OwnerParty' is a green line item within 'TransportEquipment', and was 'OwnershipID' within 'TransportEquipment' in Op66v2WIP, i.e. the relationship way-around is unchanged
    2. 'Shipment' is a green line item within 'TransportEquipment', yet 'TransportEquipment' was an aggregate within 'Shipment' in Op66v2WIP, i.e. the relationship way-around is changed.
  6. This confuses the hell out of me! I am concerned by changes I can see in the Item and Line Item area, but I have not had time to explore these yet.

I'm sending this out in advance to give people a chance to look at it before the teleconference, as I believe a number of serious issues arise as well as detail.