Re: [ubl] AW: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






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

--

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








Subject: Re: [ubl] AW: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004




From: Tim McGrath <>
To: Michael Dill <>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:18:13 +0800










It is probably simplest to refer to the subcommitee charters...


NDR -   The purpose of the NDR SC is to recommend to the TC rules and guidelines 
for normative-form schema design, instance design, and markup naming, and 
write and maintain documentation of these rules and guidelines.


LC -   The purpose of this subcommittee is to rapidly develop standard XML
business library content by taking an existing library as a starting point
and modifying it to incorporate the best features of other existing business
and core component libraries.

 Set of deliverables:

 * Create a Library of Basic Information Entities.
 * XML (XSD) Schemas for business document types based on these BIEs.
 * Example instance for each schema.
 * Customization methodology.
 * Documentation for business documents.
 * Publication into Public Registries.


CLSC -   The UBL Code List Subcommittee has been established by the OASIS
Universal Business Language TC to
 - To complete the code list position paper in light of input received
[for publication as] a TC Draft.
 - To define a standard schema template for code lists (and possibly
adjunct data) based on existing NDR specifications.
 - To work with NDRSC on any changes to the NDRs.
 - To work with LCSC to create "standard" and "stock" code lists for
inclusion with UBL 1.0 FCS.
 - To define a maintenance and versioning strategy for the code lists
included in UBL.


TTSC - Evaluate and recommend to the TC the tools and techniques to be used
in the development, quality assurance, documentation, maintenance, and revision
of the UBL XML data formats, and write and maintain guidelines reflecting
these recommendations.


I thank Michael for drawing our attention to a need to refressh oursleves
about these charters.


To respond specifically, to your comments...



  Also  I've learned that LSC takes care of the model
structures, which partially  do not yet exist, 

I am intrigued by this,do you mean they are not finished our we are missing
something?


  and NDR defines DataType etc rules for the model
level, where  I cannot see all this implemented somewhere in the LSC hosted
models. 

I agree this is confusing, the NDR do not/should not define DataTypes - these
come from the CCTS.  The NDR define how to express them in XML Schema.  It
is members of the ebXML Core Compnoent group (who happen to be in the UBL
NDR subcommittee) who raise these issues - not the NDR itself.


  CLSC  discusses how to express codes in schemas,
but how to derive code list schemas  from a non existing code list model,
which should be a part of the whole UBL  model? 

there is a code list model (the code list catalog)  this is maintained by
Library Content - who are responsible for business input - i.e. saying what
the code sets should be.


  In other words, I'd be happy to see NDR describing
both model and schemas  and how to come from model to schema.

the confusion here is that we have a code list mechanism in 1.0-Beta that
was ignorant of the NDR code list mechanism.  The CLSC was set up to rationalize
thse and has not yet conclused its work.



PS. with respect to the facet meta-data, this was included historically as
we struggled with the whole data type issue.  we have not (and never) carried
these into the schemas.  you may notice that in the models , only the columns
with a yellow heading are used to form the schemas.  the rest are for the
benefit of the LC team modeling activity only.  (the coment in cell A1 states
this).


Michael Dill wrote:

  
  
 
  
 
  Hi,
 
  When I  started to understand UBL, I thought that
NDR defines and describes the  structures and rules, LSC delivers content
except for codes, CLSC delivers  content for codes/enumerations and Tools&Techniques
produces.  Now it seems (maybe just for me) that
everybody does something  independently. 
 
   
 
  Also  I've learned that LSC takes care of the model
structures, which partially  do not yet exist, and NDR defines DataType etc
rules for the model level, where  I cannot see all this implemented somewhere
in the LSC hosted models. CLSC  discusses how to express codes in schemas,
but how to derive code list schemas  from a non existing code list model,
which should be a part of the whole UBL  model? In other words, I'd be happy
to see NDR describing both model and schemas  and how to come from model
to schema. 
 
   
 
   
  If  this impression is correct, then we do not
work very professional, I think.  Hopefully  I'm wrong.
  
 
   
 
  I'd  like NDR to describe for dummies like me why
UBL needs data redundancy in  the spreadsheets (Representation Terms vs.
Data Type). 
 
   
 
  Also  it could explain what the purpose of  the
empty spreadsheet columns with  facet information is. If the indicated DataType
(column Representation Terms or  Data Type) carries this information already,
then there is no need to have the  additional spreadsheet columns with facet
information. Otherwise the facet  information describe a new, qualified dataType.
Then the indicated DataType  (column Representation Terms or Data Type) has
to be replaced by another, more  qualified one [This is what CCTS and TBG17
require]. In both cases the  spreadsheet columns with facet information carry
redundant, and therefore  dangerous, not well maintanable information. Solution:
The facet columns must be  moved to a data type spreadsheet. The columns
Representation Term Qualifier plus  Representation Term have to be the pointers
from the document and reusable  spreadsheets to the appropriate entry in
this new data type spreadsheet. From  the new data type spreadsheet there
has to be a link to the code lists.  
 
  OR:  UBL has a concept to consider these facet
information in the current  spreadsheets just as annotation/documentation.
Then, this would be worth to have  such a note both in NDR and spreadsheet.
 
   
 
   
 
  MIchael
 
   
 
     
    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mark Palmer    [mailto:]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2004    00:23
An: 
Betreff: Fwd: he    rules  [ubl-clsc] Informal
minutes from telecon 4th Feb    2004


CLSC:


Re: 

  "a) SP raised the    issue that we probably need to clarify to what extent,
if

any, our work    can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed and

reported that    lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call
to use the same code    list

methodology as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed    and
amended

where necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft    statement
and

circulate this in the first instance to the    co-chairs."


If the work of the CLSC is not being considered for UBL    1.0, what is the
avenue for it's inclusion?


Will this topic be carried    forward to the UBL plenary later this month?


Has anyone seen a schedule    for the UBL meeting Feb 23-27 at LMI in McLean,
VA and will there be a meeting    of the CLSC with the LCSC?  If you have
the schedule, please forward    it.


--Mark Palmer  (just an observer in CLSC)



   
    From: "Sue Probert"    
 <>

To:      <>

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:52:36      -0000

Subject: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb      2004


Dear all


As there were only three people for most of the      call today I noted the

following informal minutes from today's      call.


Present:

Sue Probert (chair)

Anne Hendry

Paul      Spencer

Marty Burns (last half hour)


Regrets:

Ken      Holman

Mavis Cournane

Michael Dill


Agenda:

1/ Review of      Action List:

TC/MHC?: To send information to MD

MB: To modify document      to cover agreed empty code list decision

PS: to provide his new      requirements in a list to the CLSC list for

inclusion in the Requirements      document


2/ Review of document status and timescales


3/      AOB


Minutes:


1/ There are three remaining editing tasks to      complete the Requirements

section:

a) MB has sent Word formatted      version of the latest draft to TC and
is

awaiting his edits. MB will ask      TC when this will be available.

b) PS has sent his input to MB. MB to      complete editing in these points
asap.

c) SP raised whether the name      datamodel in the context of our document
could

be renamed metamodel to      differentiate this from business data models.
MB

proposed that some      wording changes could be introduced to clarify this

difference. MB to      propose changed text.


2/ MB will hopefully be able to complete the      editing ready for internal

circulation of teh Requirements Section in      time for it to be discussed
and

hopefully approved on next week's call.      The next stage following SC
approval

will be to send this to the csc for      eliciting comments from the other
scs.


3/ AOB


a) SP raised the      issue that we probably need to clarify to what extent,
if

any, our work      can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed
and

reported that      lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call to use the same code
list

methodology      as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed and amended

where      necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft statement
     and

circulate this in the first instance to the co-chairs.


b) SP,      on behalf of CN, aske MB whether he had been able to follow up
with

Mark      Palmer with regards to input to the document. MB is to see MP  
   tomorrow

and following that he agreed to update the group with the latest      situation.


regards


Sue
    
    

Mark E. Palmer

Building and Fire Research    Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau    Drive, Stop 8630

Gaithersburg, MD  20899

USA


email:    

tel: 301-975-5858

fax: 301-975-5433  
  


-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160