RE: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

ubl message

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

--

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

Subject: RE: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))

From: "Stig Korsgaard" <>

To: "Michael Dill" <>,"Tim McGrath" <>,<>,<>

Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:17:23 +0200

Ok, 
here is my 2-cent opinion:

 

Mark 
is correct in pointing out the issues with the current UBL Library in relation 
to applying CCTS and the missing CC�s.

 

Tim 
is correct that there is a cooperation with UBL and TBG17, and this should work 
in the way that UBL uses CCTS to build its library, it uses TBG17 SGP and 
submission form to submit to TBG17, and TBG17 gives back the result which UBL 
implements. If not, well I agree with Sue, that then there is not much point in 
the exercise.

 

Michael is not correct in that the first draft ACC�s has been TBG 
approved, but they hopefully will by Washington. For SGP this is also 
true!

 

In 
summary:

Could the current UBL Library be better in relation to compliance with 
CCTS? - Yes!

 

Will 
we soon have CC�s to work with? - Yes!

 

Will 
TBG17 respond to the UBL submission? - Yes?

 

Will 
UBL comply with the response and feedback? - That is left to be 
seen!

 

But 
one thing is for sure: There is no reason, no point, no resources and no way 
that UBL should keep a separate track nor even begin to consider being a 
full-time proprietary standards organisation in the area of data definitions, 
maintenance, etc. There are more than enough of those.

Best Regards 

Stig Korsgaard
M.Sc.E Standardisation Manager
Tel: 
   +45 3370 1083
Cell:   +45 
2725 9083
Mail:   
 

Danish Bankers 
Association
Amaliegade 
7
DK-1256 Copenhagen K
Tel:    3370 
1000
Fax:    
3393 0260

www.finansraadet.dk