Coordination call 9 January 2004

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















ubl message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Coordination call 9 January 2004




From: 
To: 
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:24:42 -0800 (PST)






The 9 January UBL CSC coordination call will take place
7 a.m. California time at the following number:

   #############################################
   STANDING INFORMATION FOR UBL CONFERENCE CALLS
   U.S. domestic toll-free number: (866)839-8145
   Int. access/caller paid number: (865)524-6352
   Access code: 5705229
   #############################################

As usual, the call is officially a CSC conference, but
participation is open to all interested UBL TC members.  I'm on
vacation this week, so Mark Crawford will be chairing the call.

ADMINISTRIVIA

   The only way I can see to solve the time-zone problem is to
   hold separate Atlantic and Pacific coordination calls.  There
   will be an initial one-time Pacific coord call to discuss
   localization issues at this time:

      17h00 Mon 2004.01.12 in California
      09h00 Tue 2004.01.13 in Hong Kong, Beijing, and Perth
      10h00 Tue 2004.01.13 in Tokyo and Seoul

   We will be using the usual UBL number:

      #############################################
      STANDING INFORMATION FOR UBL CONFERENCE CALLS
      U.S. domestic toll-free number: (866)839-8145
      Int. access/caller paid number: (865)524-6352
      Access code: 5705229
      #############################################

   We have not yet settled on regular times for either the
   Atlantic or Pacific calls, but the times that are starting to
   look most likely in the future are 16h00-17h00 California time
   on Mondays or Thursdays for the Pacific call and one of the
   slots starting at 11h00 or 12h00 California time on Mondays for
   the Atlantic call.  I am inclined to favor a schedule that
   would put the Atlantic call on Monday middays in California and
   the Pacific call on late Monday afternoons in California
   (Tuesday morning in Asia), the idea being that I could have the
   outcomes of the Atlantic meeting ready as input to the Pacific
   meeting a few hours later.

   I would like some feedback on this plan from the participants
   on the call 9 January.

=============================================
ISSUES ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING (01/09)
=============================================

2003-1212-01 Code list ownership clarification

   Issue

      Code list ownership (mechanism, population, identification)
      needs clarification.

   Status (2004.01.08)

      We seem to be largely in agreement on what follows.  There
      are still some things that need to be resolved; see end of
      this item.  I leave it to the judgement of the people on the
      call as to whether these remaining issues can be carried
      forward for a while.

   Outcomes (2003.12.19)

      We think that this describes how it's going to work:

       - LCSC produces the code list catalogue that identifies
         which code lists need to be included in UBL and provides
         the enumerated values that will be used to populate the
         code lists.

       - CLSC develops:

          - A standard data model, expressed in prose, for the
            code lists to be used in UBL; we hope that this model
            will be adopted outside of UBL as well, but its basic
            requirement is to accommodate the code lists in the
            UBL code list catalogue and the values provided by LC.

          - An XSD realization of this data model constructed
            according to schema naming and design rules specified
            by NDRSC but lacking any actual code list enumeration;
            call this a "code list template."

       - NDR checks the code list template against the UBL naming
         and design rules and returns an approved code list
         template back to CLSC for inclusion in the UBL Code List
         technical specification.

       - TTSC instantiates the code lists in the LCSC catalogue by
         generating schemas that incorporate the values provided
         by LCSC in the format defined by CLSC as approved by
         NDRSC.

   Issues carried forward (2003.12.19)

    - We need to reach out to external code list agencies to work
      with us; could this be a job for the Liaison SC?  For the
      MoU/MG?

    - We need to address the question of conformance testing
      criteria.

    - CLSC is still debating whether the W3C Schema expressions
      should be a normative annex or a sibling chapter to the data
      model.  We want to promote the UBL Code List technical
      specification to other technical non-XML domains
      (e.g. database implementations of code lists) and not give
      the impression that it is solely for W3C Schema
      implementations.

    - The methodology for extending/customizing code lists is
      still undefined.  We want users to be able to modify the
      code lists, but sentiment appears to be leaning toward the
      view that any change to a code list means, in effect, that
      the UBL schema that references the code list is actually a
      different schema.  This raises the question of what it means
      to be compliant.  One position (upon which at least Ken and
      Jon agreed during the call) is that we specify the template
      and the method for unique identification using namespace
      URIs, and that's the end of UBL's responsibility in this
      area.  The URI specification policy could be a work item for
      CLSC.  But at this point, ownership of the code list
      customization and deployment methodology/guidelines is still
      a coordination issue.

2003-1212-02 Schema compliance to NDRs

   Issue

      We need an owner for "review of schemas to ensure they
      conform to NDR rules."

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

      The responsibility for reviewing the schemas for NDR
      compliance clearly belongs to NDR.  The key questions are:

         1. Who in the NDRSC is actually responsible for doing
            this?

         2. How far are they empowered to make judgements on their
            own?  To put it another way: how and when do they
            escalate resolution on particular points to a larger
            group?

   Assignments (2003.12.12)

       - NDRSC to identify and empower someone willing and able to
         perform the NDR compliance function (or report that we
         have a resource problem).

       - NDRSC to specify an escalation plan for rule
         interpretation and conflict resolution.

   Outcomes (2003.12.19)

      This did get discussed during the NDRSC meeting 17 December,
      and I was supposed to copy the decision arrived at into the
      coordination issues list at this point, but I can't find a
      copy of the NDR minutes for that date.

2003-1212-04 RosettaNet NDR input

   Issue

      We have in hand a set of suggested revisions to the UBL NDRs
      submitted by RosettaNet in early September:

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-lsc/200309/msg00002.html

      We also have the latest RosettaNet NDRs:

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200312/msg00010.html

      We need to figure out how we are going to handle these inputs.

   Status

      See

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200312/msg00002.html

      The basic problem here is that the comments were received
      several months too late to be considered in the discussions
      of NDRs for UBL 1.0.  Now the question is: what (if
      anything) can be done to promote convergence at this late
      date?

   Outcomes (2003.12.12)

      The coordination call didn't come to any conclusion about
      this, so we'll need to carry it forward.  Here is what I
      think we need to know in order to arrive at some kind of
      decision:

         For each area of difference identified in the September
         document from RosettaNet:

          - Does this still apply to the final NDRs?

          - If so, do we agree with the suggested change in
            principle?

          - If we do, what would be the practical impact of
            changing UBL NDRs to align with the RosettaNet
            suggestion in UBL 1.0 FCS?

      Without this analysis, I don't think we can do anything but
      say "Sorry, too late."

   Assignment

      We didn't get this far in the call 2003.12.12, but I think
      the implicit assignment is to NDRSC to tell us whether there
      are the resources available to perform the gap analysis
      outlined above.

   Outcome (2003.12.19)

      I can't find the NDRSC minutes for 12/17.

   Further development (2004.01.05)

      Mail from Bill Burcham to the NDRSC list indicates that
      NDRSC is working on this.

==================================
ISSUES THAT CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD
==================================

2003-1212-03 Schema validation

   Issue

      We need a clear assignment of responsibility for validating
      schemas and example instances using various XSD validators
      every time the schemas are modified.

   Assignment (2003.12.12)

      TTSC to decide which validators shall be considered
      authoritative (there should be several) and to fix the
      responsibility for (1) running validation checks using these
      validators after each build and (2) reporting to the TC that
      the build has successfully passed all the checks.

2003-1212-07 Schema generation

   Issue

      I think this refers to the whole question of who's
      responsible for what going into the next build cycle.  But I
      could be wrong; it's Tim's item.

2003-1212-08 NDR document

   Issues

    - Publication/feedback schedule

    - Effect of changes on Beta -> FCS

2003-1212-09 Beta/FCS diff tracking

   Issue

      How to maintain and communicate thoroughly detailed diffs of
      changes between Beta and FCS for input to the UBL
      localization SCs and early implementers

2003-1212-10 Populating the OASIS Registry with UBL artifacts

   Issues

     - What is needed 

     - Who can do it

     - Deadline 15 January

   Background

      See the thread beginning at

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-csc/200312/msg00028.html

      And further input at

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-csc/200312/msg00055.html

2003-1212-11 UBL compliance

   Issue

      What does it mean to be "UBL compliant"?

   Status

      TTSC (which must answer this question for practical reasons)
      is beginning to analyze the issue and is in the process of
      producing some use cases for further discussion.  I have
      forwarded their latest thinking on this in separate mail to
      the TC list.  But the question cuts across CMSC, LCSC, CLSC,
      and NDRSC, and therefore its resolution is a coordination
      issue.

   Background

      See the TTSC preliminary analysis of use cases:

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200312/msg00036.html

      And the 1.0 Beta "Guidelines For The Customization of UBL
      Schemas":

         http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/lcsc/UBLv1-beta/cm/wd-cmsc-cmguidelines-1.0-beta.html

      A paper written by the late Michael Adcock is also felt to
      be relevant to this discussion:

         http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/ubl-lcsc/download.php/4364/Context_NewPaper.doc

2004-0109-01 Code list input from SC4

   Issue

      At the MoU/MG meeting in Detroit 24-25 November 2003, it was
      noted that ISO TC184/SC4 (industrial and product data) has
      done a lot of thinking about vocabularies in areas such as
      materials handling and process control.  We should submit
      our code list catalogue to SC4 via the MoU/MG to see whether
      SC4 has content to contribute.

   Relevant links

      www.tc184-sc4.org
      www.tc184-sc4.org/About_TC184-SC4/About_SC4_Standards/

      The second one gives an overview of the SC4 work.

   Responsibility

      This appears to be a joint CLSC and LCSC item.