[ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 26 June 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting

Minutes for 26 June 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting

1. Roll call (quorum is 8)
     * Bill Burcham        regrets
     * Mavis Cournane      YES
     * Mark Crawford       awol
     * Fabrice Desré       awol
     * Matt Gertner        regrets
     * Arofan Gregory      YES
     * Jessica Glace       YES
     * Michael Grimley     awol
     * Eduardo Gutentag    YES (left y:15)
     * Eve Maler           YES
     * Sue Probert         regrets
     * Lisa Seaburg        YES (left z:10)
     * Gunther Stuhec      YES
     * Paul Thorpe         awol

     Quorum not reached.  We proceeded informally.

2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meeting

    19 June 2002
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200206/msg00019.html

    Deferred.

3. Adoption of agenda

    Adopted.

4. Action item review

    Mavis:
    - Review Gunther's script for new issues. IN PROGRESS
    - With Gunther, add *Type/*ContentType info to the NDR document.
      IN PROGRESS
    - With Bill, incorporate CCTS feedback metamodel into the
      Relationship with CC section of NDR doc. DONE
    - Update the issues spreadsheet with Eve's comments.

    Eve:
    - Extract code list chapter and finish it.
    - Write a code list FAQ.
    - Reorg portal to make new archive and add info on future work.
      IN PROGRESS
    - Approach Tim and Jon on SWAT team idea. IN PROGRESS
    - Add issues spreadsheet template to the portal.
    - Remind Mark about chairing July 3.
    - Send early agenda for July 3.

    Gunther:
    - Revise facet paper? CANCELED
    - Write content referencing paper. IN PROGRESS
    - Talk to Mike Adcock about putting together a paper on Identifiers
      as Properties.

    Bill:
    - Update modnamver.
    - Revise role model paper?

    Arofan:
    - Forward the latest version of the xCBL versioning paper. CANCELED.

    Eduardo:
    - Check whether XHTML Basic has <div>. DONE

    Lisa:
    - Send out a list of the current LC SC spreadsheet column headers.
    - With Arofan, get NDR document section written on embedded
      documentation.

5. Schedule planning

    July 3:
    - Mark to chair; Eve, Eduardo, Arofan, Mark send regrets
    - Or cancel if attendance looks like it will be very thin
    - Topics: date/time, review NDR document
    July 10:
    - Eduardo sends regrets
    - Topics: ?
    July 17:
    - Eduardo sends regrets
    - Topics: Review NDR document
    July 24:
    - Jessica sends regrets
    - Topics: ?
    July 31:
    - Topics: Review NDR document
    ...
    September 18:
    - Topics: Approve documents for review distribution #3
    September 25:
    - No meeting; work on other UBL tasks instead
    October 1-4:
    - F2F #5 in Burlington, MA, USA

      A NDR document improvements (review every two weeks)
      A+ Embedded documentation DONE EXCEPT FOR DOCUMENTING IT
      A Code lists IN PROGRESS
      A Dates and times IN PROGRESS
      A Nested supplementary components
      A Identifier references and whether to pass content by reference
      A- Local vs. global elements
      B+ Containership
      B Updating guiding principles
      B Modnamver URN/schema location
      B Referencing of content, e.g. for attachments
      C Facets
      C Wildcards/open content
      C Nillability
      C Aggregation of similar information for XPath V1.0 addressing

6. Brief reports from other SCs
    Lisa on LC SC:
    - 0.64 is the latest.  Lisa is actively working on 0.65, which will
      have OrderResponse and all changes from the feedback, but it's not
      public yet.  She hopes to get it out before the end of this week.
      It might or might not include fresh generated schemas.

7. Issues spreadsheet review

    Mavis agrees to be the owner of the issues spreadsheet.  It should
    have a minimum of formulas, so that it can be opened with StarOffice
    too.

8. Embedded documentation
    - Any word on XHTML Basic and <div>? Yes, <div> is allowed.

    - Should the source attribute on <xsd:documentation> be used?  One
      idea is to store the documentation externally.  But it's nice to
      have everything in one place.

      We agreed that the documentation information should be put inline
      in the normative version of the schema modules, but that a nice
      auxiliary output would be a "stripped-down" set of schema modules
      for performance reasons, which has all the source attributes
      populated automatically.

    - <xsd:documentation>
        <xhtml:div class="...">
          <xhtml:{any}>...</xhtml:{any}>
          ...
        </xhtml:div>
      <xsd:documentation>

      Do we agree that this is the template?  Yes.

      What should the values of the class attributes be?  We already
      agreed that they shouldn't play any namespace tricks.  We do
      think they they should be name tokens instead of just strings,
      though.  For starters, we should use the column headers already
      used in the LC SC spreadsheet, except we would have to change
      or remove the spaces somehow.

      For example, the spreadsheet has a column header "UBL Name".
      The perl script could turn this into a "UBLName" or "UBL_Name"
      class attribute value.  The underscore is less lossy, so that
      the column header could easily be regenerated without a wholesale
      mapping.

    - Do we need a position paper or just go straight to NDR doc?
      We agreed that it can go directly into the NDR document.  Lisa
      will ride herd on Arofan to get this done.

9. Code list issues
    - Add non-normative info about RNG code list schemas?  We need to
      say that you have to have an XSD represention of your schema,
      because XSD is a "closed system" and that's the only way that
      UBL can work with it.

    - What to say about locally scoped code lists?  While UBL doesn't
      intend to have any, we can advise people that if they don't want
      to expose their code lists, they should use anonymous types for
      them.

    - Should code list modules declare elements too?  We think that
      it's a good idea to illustrate for them how to define their own
      namespaced element, though currently we don't intend to use it
      (because of our local unqualified element approach).  We don't
      think we should show them how to define an attribute for the
      code in addition, because it's too complicated; we can always
      bind their code content type to our own attribute at will.

      Regarding how to clarify the semantics of the content type when
      it's not accompanied by the code list type (the complex type),
      we think the embedded documentation locking down the supplementary
      components should be placed on the inner (code content) type.

      We are deferring how to handle the semantic clarity the agency
      ID (which is in fact an agency ID code!).  We will discuss this
      in agenda item #11.

    - What should documentation labels be?  There are three obvious
      choices: the CCTS name (e.g., Code.Agency.Identifier), the
      the UBL name (e.g. agencyID), and the English spreadsheet-style
      name (e.g. Agency_Identifier).

10. Dates and times
     - Go through Gunther's latest paper.  The paper is at V03.

     - Point:

       Logical representation options (Section 2.1): CCTS gives us Date,
       Time, and DateTime, while XSD gives us finer granularity with its
       "g" datatypes, but these are not really for points in time;
       they're more appropriate for periodic recurrences.  The other
       possible formats listed are also more specific to periods.
       We agreed that Date, Time, and DateTime are the right answer.

       Physical representation options (Section 3.1): #1 would define XSD
       types for the CCT.  #2 would use the existing XSD built-in types.

       We agree on option #2.  Here are our rationales for why its
       disadvantages (Section 3.1.2.2) are not a problem:

       "The structure does not fit to the ebXML CCTS V1.8": We think this
       syntax binding is entirely legitimate.

       "There are some more representation terms necessary": This
       solution doesn't allow us to use gMonth and so on without
       inventing more RTs that currently aren't in the CCTS.  This is in
       the same situation as the following one.

       "It can not define the formats as described in chapter 2.1.3":
       These include things like ordinal day within a year.  We're
       wondering if this is really a problem; we may not have realistic
       use cases that would require us to express information
       "intensionally" in these alternate formats.  (They can always be
       represented "extensionally" as raw points in time, which is
       lossy.)

     - Duration
     - Period
     - Periodicity/recurrent
       Deferred until next time.  Gunther will reorganize the paper to
       put each of the logical/physical pairs of sections together.

11. Nested supplementary components
     - Do we have to design these by hand?
     - What about default code lists for some of these?
       Deferred.

12. Adjourn
     Adjourned z:15.

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 883 5917
XML Web Services / Industry Initiatives      eve.maler @ sun.com