Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 24|25 October 2005

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING
00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2005

ATTENDANCE

   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Stephen Green
   Tim McGrath
   Andy Schoka
   Sylvia Webb

ADMINISTRIVIA

   JB: Note time change next week!  This Pacific call remains in
   the same time slot (00h30-02h30 UTC), but for callers in North
   America, it will *seem* to start an hour earlier.  In other
   words:

      00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY
      16h30 - 18h30 Mon San Francisco
      19h30 - 21h30 Mon New York
      08h30 - 10h30 Tue Hong Kong, Singapore, Perth, Beijing
      09h30 - 11h30 Tue Seoul, Tokyo
      11h30 - 13h30 Tue Sydney

   When in doubt, plug the UTC time into the time and date service:

      http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

STANDING ITEMS

   Additions to the calendar:
      http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm

      No additions to the calendar.

      JB: How did things go at the OASIS Adoption Forum?

      TM: Interesting event, 50-60 people.  Solid OASIS presence
      in Europe. Disussions with people in other OASIS TCs showed
      a lot of interest in UBL.  UBL talk was well received.  A
      significant panel discussion at the end with people from
      various standards organizations raised the question of how
      standards bodies coordinate their activities.

   Liaison report: ebBP TC

      SG: The TC expressed thanks for the help from UBL and is now
      in the process of repackaging their spec for the next public
      review.

   Subcommittee report: HISC

      SG: Note changes to the content model.

         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-hisc/200510/msg00002.html

      JB: Is this the first backward-incompatible semantic change?

      TM: Not the first, but this is a deliberate change of tag
      name, undertaken with some trepidation at the request of
      Denmark and Sweden.  The definition stays the same, but
      there is a different tag name and DEN.

      [See further discussion under Subcommittee report: PSC]

   Subcommittee report: SBSC

      See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200510/msg00070.html

      AGREED: SBSC to make the changes noted in email by SG, and
      after approval by the TC, submit the revised CD for a 15-day
      public review of the changes.

   Subcommittee report: PSC

      TM: Will be meeting 0800 UTC Tuesday, during the Europe/Asia
      call at 0800 UTC Wednesday, and possibly Friday as well.
      Still dealing with issues, still several to go through; will
      be lucky to finish this week.  Will probably have a set of
      spreadsheets that address the issues by the end of this
      week, then discussion and review next week, maybe editorial
      review; so the earliest to present draft models to EF is
      probably the week of 7 or maybe even 14 November.

      SW: With regard to recent content changes, no opposition to
      doing what needs to be done, but the PSC should not be
      making changes of this magnitude without taking them to the
      full TC.

      SG: We're not seeing minutes.  I was not consulted about
      meeting times and therefore can't participate, and the F2Fs
      are not on the phone.  We need more time to respond; we
      can't be dealing with the issues at the last minute.

      SW: Meeting announcements are not going out in advance;
      decisions are being made, but we have no clue about what was
      discussed and what the reasoning was.  This is a source of
      frustration.

      TM: Accept criticism about lack of visibility and
      accountability, but we're also battling against the
      timetable. Would rather see that we meet the timetable and
      deal with feedback in public review or TC review.  The need
      right now is for PSC to put things on paper, then we can
      make further changes as necessary.

      JB: Changes should be documented in mail.  We don't want to
      go into public review with major disagreements already
      pending.

      TM: The changes we're talking about are not that
      significant.

      SG: The problem is that they're all lumped together.  We
      need a change log.

      TM: What we need is email at the conclusion of every round
      of edits that notes significant changes.  SG has identified
      a couple of issues already.  (AGREED.)

   Subcommittee report: TSC

      TM: May actually overtake PSC. Very good f2f in Singapore
      last Thursday.

      AS: The wrap-up was very positive.  Looks to be finishing by
      the end of the month.

      TM: Close to agreement on models in UML form before building
      spreadsheets, so the actual creation of spreadsheets is
      straightforward and will start now.  TSC is still on
      schedule.  However, we did discuss the fact that CL has been
      commissioned to take on the development of another three
      transport documents and would like them to be part of UBL
      2.0.  Could these be included after the public review?

      JB: Adding that much new content increases the odds that we
      will need a third public review.

      SG: The prospect of a more complete transport set is good
      news, but it will be better to get them into the first round
      of reviews.

      JB: Yes. How quickly can this be done?

      TM: Not within the original schedule.

      AGREED that the TSC should discuss the scheduling
      implications of adding the additional document types at its
      meeting 2 November and report back to the TC.

   Team report: Catalogue

      TM: Has slipped a week due to travel. The Catalogue group
      had its final f2f on 13 October; well attended, with
      additional new input from groups representing the French and
      Italian governments.  This input has resulted in significant
      changes that TM must now apply to the model.  The meeting
      also disposed of an issue regarding classification schemes;
      the group was going to develop those, but on being advised
      that this is part of the work of the TBG1 and CEN/ISSS
      catalogue project, have decided to use the result of that
      work instead (the documents such as Classification Scheme,
      etc.).  This reduces our work but adds a dependency on
      theirs.  The CEN/ISSS documents are scheduled for delivery
      next year, so we will have to add them after the first
      public review.  We may not include them in the package,
      just point to them.

   Team report: Code Lists

      At this point, a very long and confusing discussion took
      place regarding code lists and the need for a UBL QDT
      module.  Principal outcomes:

       - It appears that we are still not absolutely sure which
         code lists will be part of UBL 2.0, not because of
         questions about the categorization we arrived at in
         Ottawa but simply because we haven't formed a complete
         list.

       - DavidK has developed a mechanism whereby we can use the
         ATG2 UDT and still use code values as both attribute and
         element content.

       - If we eliminate UBL amount, we don't need a QDT or
         spreadsheets for QDT.  But there are design reasons to
         not close the door on this.

      ACTION: SG and SW to create a UBL UDT spreadsheet that
      describes everything in the ATG2 UDT schema, ignoring what
      UBL currently has for UDT and QDT, and then create the UBL
      QDT using the same structure.

      ACTION: SG and SW to manually update the CC parameter
      schema.

      We note that creation of the UDT and QDT will require
      assistance from GEFEG.

   Review of Atlantic and Europe/Asia calls

      No comments.

   Schedule review

      JB: We've run out of time to discuss my message about the
      support package and will have to add this to the Atlantic TC
      agenda.

ACTION ITEM REVIEW

   ACTION: TM to document the spreadsheet structure and format by
   first week of October.  This means a prose description of
   each column in the spreadsheets that we are now using.

      Changed to "first week of November."

   ACTION: JB to revise the UBL 2.0 schedule to separate the core
   2.0 package from the informative materials.

      Core done; informative depends on time estimates requested
      in the message regarding the support package.

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC