Hi Oriol,
the due date depends of single LSCs efforts, we all have to estimate the
localization process, after this I think we'll be able to choose a due
date.
Some estimates are 4 weeks other 6 months... also these are just
estimates, I personally need to ask ITLSC members to give their
availability.
At the moment ITLSC localization time has been moved from 4 weeks to 3
months after some member feedback.
Next UBL TC conference will choose the best solution for templates.
As Yukinori Saito stated, I think we need to add a title (and date) as
template header, as this is useful when templates are printed during the
translation process.
At this point as the template has to be printed I think both "No." column
and a suitable header are necessary.
Thank you for your feedback !
UBL ITLSC
co-chair
Roberto Cisternino
> Hi all,
>
> Roberto, we want to thank you very much the effort in the localization
> templates design, this will be very helpful.
>
> We think that probably the best approach should be the third one, so
> adding
> the column as the rightmost so each LC can use it but it won't affect the
> IDD generation process.
>
> We are already working on the translation and we would like to know if
> there
> is a due date in order to plan our time.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Oriol Bausà
> Co-chair ESLSC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: jueves, 23 de noviembre de 2006 15:58
> To:
> Cc: ; ;
> ; ;
> Subject: Re: [ubl] Draft IDD 2.0 templates
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> as localization templates have been designed to allow an automatic merge
> necessary to achieve the final complete IDD, we have to consider 3 choices
> for the Business Process column:
>
> 1) I add the column to all templates for all languages.
>
> 2) JPLSC adds the column for internal use and I remove it just before the
> merge process (not a clean way).
>
> 3) JPLSC or others could add the column at the rightmost (latest) column,
> this way the merce process could ignore the column, or this column could
> be just "hidden" before the merge process.
>
> NOTE: Another important issue I found by checking the JPLSC sample is they
> modified the template header (by ading a title and a date). If this is
> necessary we have to do it for all templates and LSCs.
>
> For general info the UBL module title is already available as a file-name
> (thus is visible on the title bar of Excel) and also into spreadsheet
> properties (under File menu).
>
> I am not sure I will be able to attend the conference call yet, I will try
> to organize myself, however I will reply any question where necessary
> ASAP.
>
> Best Regards
>
> UBL ITLSC
> co-chair
> Roberto Cisternino
>
>
>> [:]
>>
>> | I made the Common library spreadsheet that contains Business Process
>> column.
>> | I attached the Common library spreadsheet for JPLSC use.
>> | I would like to use this spreadsheet for our Japanese translation.
>>
>> We need to discuss this during the conference calls next week.
>>
>> Among the questions I have:
>>
>> - If this is useful for JPLSC, then why not for all of us?
>>
>> - If this is useful only for JPLSC, what are the implications for
>> making an integrated IDD?
>>
>> - Judging from the example, the only two "business processes" are
>> "Procurement" and "Transportation."
>>
>> - Is this a useful distinction?
>>
>> - What do we do with information items that are used both for
>> procurement and for transportation?
>>
>> - The business process assignments in the spec are much finer
>> grained (Create Catalogue, Ordering, Fulfilment with Receipt
>> Advice, etc.). Why are we not using those?
>>
>> Note that I am not saying that I think the Business Process column
>> is not useful. I just want to be clear on how best to implement this
>> idea.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>
>
> Roberto Cisternino
>
>
Roberto Cisternino
