← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →
Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 29 November 2006
MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING
16:00 - 18:00 UTC WEDNESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2006
ATTENDANCE
Peter Borresen
Jon Bosak (chair)
Tony Coates
Mavis Cournane
Mike Grimley
Paul Thorpe
STANDING ITEMS
Additions to the calendar:
http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm
None.
Review of Pacific call
No comments (other than the items below).
IDD templates
AGREED to the conclusion reached in the Pacific call:
AGREED that the "business process" column contributed by
JPLSC should be included in the common library templates for
use by LSCs that wish to divide up the translation work,
said column to include just the categories "procurement" and
"transportation" and to be removed (if it's still there)
when the IDD is compiled. Same for an item number column as
Column A, with the suggestion that LSCs delete that column
if they find the duplication of numbers confusing.
AGREED to add title and date as template headers per request
from JPLSC.
Discussed this input from JPLSC:
UBL-Catalogue-2.0-JP.xsl -> 01-UBL-Catalogue-2.0-JP.xsl
UBL-CatalogueRequest-2.0-JP.xsl -> 02-UBL-CatalogueRequest-2.0-JP.xs
UBL-Order-2.0-JP.xsl -> 08-UBL-Order-2.0-JP.xsl
UBL-CommonLibrary-2.0-JP.xsl -> 51-UBL-CommonLibrary-2.0-JP.xsl
This is because I wanted the 53 business documents will be
listed manageable order. In case the original file name, the
appearance order of 53 business documents are disorder.
PB: The order depends on the particular business process.
JB: So there is no canonical order to adopt here.
AGREED to leave the file names unchanged in the distribution to
the LSCs. JPLSC can rename the files for use in translation
but must change them back before submitting them for
compilation in the IDD. [We did not discuss whether JPLSC can
use the modified file names in its own distribution for use in
Japan, but in the past we've allowed LSCs virtually unlimited
flexibility in the way they present UBL for their language
communities.]
MEETING CALENDAR
AGREED to accept GKH's proposal of 7-11 May 2007 in Manhattan
for the next UBL TC meeting.
MC: Regarding an autumn meeting in Europe: better chance of my
attendance at the beginning of September or October than later
in the month (but still not good due to project deliverables).
MG: Slim chance that I could attend a meeting in Europe.
AGREED to hang loose on scheduling an autumn meeting and to try
in the meantime to get more concrete dates for the proposed UBL
International conference. We will need to finalize the autumn
meeting schedule by March 2007 at the latest.
OTHER BUSINESS
Format for UBL data model
PB: Would like to propose that we develop a
vendor-independent format for the UBL data model that better
accommodates customizations.
JB: One of the two formats we use for spreadsheets (ODF) is
an ISO standard, and we've had several independent
demonstrations of successfully producing schemas from the
spreadsheets, so vendor independence is not an issue as long
as we maintain the model as spreadsheets. Is there some
other issue here?
PB: Yes, we need a layered model to better support
customizations. The spreadsheets work well for starting
from scratch, but not for representing later modification or
creating business rules. Perhaps we need an XML format
designed for this.
ACTION: PB to provide a discussion document on the need for
a vendor-independent format for the UBL data model that
includes an initial statement of requirements.
TC calls during the holidays
JB: Note that we have no TC calls the week of 4 December.
We will have calls the week of 11 December, then (due to the
solstice celebrations) no more calls till the week of 8
January. So our meeting schedule for the next few calls is:
Pacific: 2006.12.11|12
Atlantic: 2006.12.13
Pacific: 2007.01.08|09
Atlantic: 2007.01.10
MB/PT: Will not be on the call 13 December.
MC: The 13 December call will be my last until 7 February.
NDR 2.0 public review
MC: We got just one comment on NDR 2.0: that it was a
significant improvement on 1.0.
JB: I think that we should copy the instance rules from UBL
2.0 back into the 2.0 NDR.
AGREED to implement that change and put NDR on the agenda
for the Atlantic TC call 10 January 2007.
Requesting UBL 2.0 standardization
JB: Due to the single negative vote on the UBL 2.0
standardization ballot, I will be posting a common consent
resolution requesting OASIS to move the specification
forward immediately following the close of voting Thursday
night. Since we're not meeting next week, we'll do this by
mail. You don't need to do anything if you have no
objection to going ahead with standardization.
Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →