MINUTES: 16 March 2003 NDRSC

MHonArc v2.4.5 -->
















ubl-ndrsc message






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

--

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








Subject: MINUTES: 16 March 2003 NDRSC




From: "Lisa Seaburg" <>
To: "UBL-NDR" <>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:15:14 -0500









 
1.  Roll 
Call and Welcome from the chair (Lisa or Mavis?), assignment of  Lisa to 
take minutes.
 
Attendees:  Mike Grimley, Dan Vint, Lisa Seaburg, Kris Ketels, Eve 
Maler, Paul Thorpe, Eduardo Gutentag, Anne Hendrey, Gunther Stuhec,   
Arofan Gregory, Jon Bosak.
 
Regrets: Mark Crawford, Mavis Cournane, 



2.  Acceptance of minutes from the previous 
meeting.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200303/msg00062.html - 
No Quorum


3.  Adoption of 
agenda/schedule planning - 
 
Noted: Mark sent an email saying the 
ATG group will be there everyday, they will need 1 hour daily out of our 
discussions.
 
Schedule for Face to Face, 
London:
Monday

Opening plenary  (Lisa will 
present)
Afternoon:
Danish Bankers (Stig Korsgaard) - Lisa 
needs to talk to Stig to set time and date.
Discussing the weeks schedule
Local vs. Global
 
Tuesday
AM: Common Core Components Document
PM: Code Lists? finalised??
Context Methodology (overview) 
(Eduardo)
Containership (after 2pm) (Arofan, 
Gunther)
    - Would like to invite Tim 
McGrath and Mike Adcock to attend this section of meeting, ask them when they 
are available.
Namespace and Versioning (overview)
Embedded Documentation (overview)
 
Wednesday
(We should schedule call in, Eve Maler said she 
will call in, anybody else?) (7-10am ET noon-3pm UK)
AM: Containership
PM: more Local vs Global
 
Thursday
(We should schedule call in, Eve Maler said she 
will call in, anybody else?) (7-10am ET noon-3pm UK)
AM: edit NDR Doc
Subgroup: Context Methodology
PM: Gunther's paper on Naming Length 
and Truncation Rules.
PM: edit NDR Doc
 
Friday (Lisa not there)
Mark to present Closing NDR 
Plenary


4. Review priorities and assignment 
of work items (Mavis/Lisa/Mark)

A+ NDR document update (Mark not available to give update.)
A Code 
list rules and schema template - (in progress, discussed and formulated more 
rules in this call)
A Embedded documentation (may need to review table format 
and discuss at face to face. Need to decide about Gunther's proposal.)
A 
Local vs. Global elements - (to be discussed at F2F)
    Discussion about ATG2 joining in 
this discussion, we need harmonization of opinions across the two 
groups.
    Involving ATG2 is important to 
make sure their views are represented within our discussions.
    ATG2 members have been invited 
to meeting, don't know which ones are able to yet, will look into 
this.
A Namespace rules (to be discussed at F2F)
A Versioning rules (to be 
discussed at F2F)
A Context Methodology (to be discussed at F2F)
B Common 
Core Components documentation - (in progress)
    Working on examples and putting 
in the different sections editing by others.
    Would like to be finished before 
the Face to Face.
    Send to the LCSC, asking for 
review and comments. (before Face to Face)
B Containership (discussion on this call and at F2F)

6. 
Containership - (I tried to catch most of this discussion, it was quite 
lively)
    DV: I was wrong (Dan, just had 
to put that into writing), in looking at redefine for the example it turns out 
it does work together, which brings Gunthers proposal back into 
play.
    GS: My colleagues and myself 
have been using model groups for document assembly.  In design time, you 
can use templates (model groups).
    DV: The mechanisim of how to 
extend complex and simple types works for model groups.
    AG: Does this get 
complex?
    GS: Not really.
    AG: Can Gunther give me a wrap 
up of how this is used?
    GS: How can we merge the 
two papers to get a common paper about containership.
    AG: I will be freeer to work on 
it next week.
    GS: It makes sense to combine 
semantical containers, at design time it works.  There would be a template 
for anybody wanting to design business documents.  It is not necessary to 
see the containers in the XML instances.  You are creating more hierachies, 
and more elements.  It makes the document much more complicated and not so 
processable.  
    AG: There are some containers 
that are not semantical, all they do is facilitate processing and java 
binding.  Are we talking about the same thing.
    GS:  Yes, we are talking 
about similar things.
    AG:  I want to know we will 
have containers for extending elements.  If I wanted to extend the header 
information, I want to be able to put my element in the right place with the 
header information.
    GS:  Model groups you can 
not do this.  We need to find out if we can extend the model group 
itself?
    AG:  This could take a long 
time.
    DV:  This is the same 
question as when I started out.  
    AG:  How does this 
work?  If we choose to use model groups for things, can we do 
this?
    DV:  A couple of weeks ago 
we reviewed the groups usage.  At that point I thought you could not do the 
extensions there.  What is the actual steps for getting to the extension 
capabilities that we need?  So far it looks like using redefine would 
work.
    EG: We had this discussion in 
Context Methodology, Dan is going to present how it could work.  We have 
the methodology for Context, but what we need is what features in XSD Schema 
will allow us to have what we need.
    DV: If you have other ideas of 
how this pulls together and what it looks like, I would love to see that.  
Redefine is the only way I have found so far.
    EG:  Redefine works in a 
separate namespace.
    GS:  I did not find a way 
either.
    AG:  I think there are 
non-semantic containers that we will want to have in our documents.  For 
purposes of extension and for processing.  The other thing you need is to 
encapsulate within the body, any repeatative lists that we are 
using.
    GS:  you do not define 
additional element groups?
    AG:  If I have a lineitem I 
have a list of ScheduleLine which I could have 1 to n, put this ScheduleLines 
element around these.  This allows for better processing.
    GS: You would see this element 
in the instance?
    AG: Yes, our positions are not 
that different.  I am thinking more of processing.
    GS:  It is very complicated 
to process the kind of hierarchies you are talking about.
    GS: You will have trouble with 
the database processing with this kind of structure.
    AG:  You don't store the 
containers in the database, you would know when they are there and not need to 
store them.
    GS:  Normally we are very 
clear about how you define your tables in your database.
    AG:  These are rules that 
are about the document in tranmission, not in the database.
    GS:  If we have too many 
hierarchies it slows down the seirilization.
    DV:  Hierarchies are good, 
they are our friend.
    AG:  If we can agree on 
fairly simple mapping rules on these, then the cost could be 
marginal.
    GS:  If we are processing 
many documents in a short time (say 20 million per day), this could be 
costly.
    AG:  I was saying in my 
document that we only use these containers in key spots to help with the 
processing.  This could actually be beneficial to the processing.  How 
many levels of hierarchies is too many?
    GS:  Probably 10 levels 
could be too many.
    AG:  We don't want to take 
it to that extent.
    AG:  I think what we are 
talking about may not be 1 to 1, but is not far off.
    GS:  I will do some testing 
next week,
    AG:  We should be able to 
use the results to come up with some rules for the levels of 
containers.
    AG:  We will hold off until 
we see this, lets postpone discussion until then.
    LS:  I am happy with seeing 
the two papers merged and coming up with a set of rules that all can live 
by.
    AG:  We may get some push 
back on this from LCSC.
    AG:  NDR should work it out 
first, then use the second day to work with Mike and Tim.  
    LS:  I will shift around on 
schedule the part where we have.
 
AI:  Gunther has to put together two things, 
semantic grouping, then use Arofan's paper to come up with a reasonable number 
of levels.
 
Discussion to continue.
 
7. Issues from last week's call - Issues of the 
ATG2 group joining 
Lisa to ask Mark about status of this 
item.
 
Did anyone read Gunther's paper about 
element names.  This is added to Thursday at Face to Face.
 
8. Common Core Components - 
see above.
 
9.  New Business:
CCTS 
Implementation Verification:  Tim is drafting the UBL response to the 
CCTS Implementation Verification and need some input on the Core Components 
Context Constraints Language (section 6.2.4 of the CCTS).  Is it 
appropriate to say we intend to implement this?  
 
Lisa will email 
Tim with reply:  In the next phase we have always said we would implement 
this.  Basically our current extension methdology is predicated on the use 
of it in the future.   Eduardo agrees with this 
wholeheartedly.
 
Next 
Weeks Agenda Items:
 
Discussion of 
Redefine
Status of CCTS 
Implementation Verification
Element Naming 
and Truncation Rules (Gunther)
Common Core 
Components Document, should be finished and sent out to LCSC for 
review.


9. Adjourned at 11:50am 
CDT
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lisa 
Seaburg
AEON LLC
Website: http://www.aeon-llc.com/
Email:  
Alternative 
Email: 
Phone: 
662-562-7676
Cellphone: 662-501-7676
 
"Remember that great love and great achievements 
involve great 
risk."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++






Follow-Ups:

Schema Extension capabilities review
From: Dan Vint <>








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

--

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