AW: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






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

--

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








Subject: AW: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004




From: "Michael Dill" <>
To: "Ubl List \(E-mail\)" <>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:05:58 +0100









Hi,
When I 
started to understand UBL, I thought that NDR defines and describes the 
structures and rules, LSC delivers content except for codes, CLSC delivers 
content for codes/enumerations and Tools&Techniques produces. 
Now it seems (maybe just for me) that everybody does something 
independently. 
 
Also 
I've learned that LSC takes care of the model structures, which partially 
do not yet exist, and NDR defines DataType etc rules for the model level, where 
I cannot see all this implemented somewhere in the LSC hosted models. CLSC 
discusses how to express codes in schemas, but how to derive code list schemas 
from a non existing code list model, which should be a part of the whole UBL 
model? In other words, I'd be happy to see NDR describing both model and schemas 
and how to come from model to schema. 
 

If 
this impression is correct, then we do not work very professional, I think. 
Hopefully 
I'm wrong.
 
I'd 
like NDR to describe for dummies like me why UBL needs data redundancy in 
the spreadsheets (Representation Terms vs. Data Type). 
 
Also 
it could explain what the purpose of  the empty spreadsheet columns with 
facet information is. If the indicated DataType (column Representation Terms or 
Data Type) carries this information already, then there is no need to have the 
additional spreadsheet columns with facet information. Otherwise the facet 
information describe a new, qualified dataType. Then the indicated DataType 
(column Representation Terms or Data Type) has to be replaced by another, more 
qualified one [This is what CCTS and TBG17 require]. In both cases the 
spreadsheet columns with facet information carry redundant, and therefore 
dangerous, not well maintanable information. Solution: The facet columns must be 
moved to a data type spreadsheet. The columns Representation Term Qualifier plus 
Representation Term have to be the pointers from the document and reusable 
spreadsheets to the appropriate entry in this new data type spreadsheet. From 
the new data type spreadsheet there has to be a link to the code lists. 

OR: 
UBL has a concept to consider these facet information in the current 
spreadsheets just as annotation/documentation. Then, this would be worth to have 
such a note both in NDR and spreadsheet.
 
 
MIchael
 

  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mark Palmer 
  [mailto:]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2004 
  00:23
An: 
Betreff: Fwd: he 
  rules  [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 
  2004

CLSC:

Re: 
  "a) SP raised the 
  issue that we probably need to clarify to what extent, if
any, our work 
  can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed and
reported that 
  lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call to use the same code 
  list
methodology as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed 
  and amended
where necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft 
  statement and
circulate this in the first instance to the 
  co-chairs."

If the work of the CLSC is not being considered for UBL 
  1.0, what is the avenue for it's inclusion?

Will this topic be carried 
  forward to the UBL plenary later this month?

Has anyone seen a schedule 
  for the UBL meeting Feb 23-27 at LMI in McLean, VA and will there be a meeting 
  of the CLSC with the LCSC?  If you have the schedule, please forward 
  it.

--Mark Palmer  (just an observer in CLSC)



  From: "Sue Probert" 
    <>
To: 
    <>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:52:36 
    -0000
Subject: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 
    2004

Dear all

As there were only three people for most of the 
    call today I noted the
following informal minutes from today's 
    call.

Present:
Sue Probert (chair)
Anne Hendry
Paul 
    Spencer
Marty Burns (last half hour)

Regrets:
Ken 
    Holman
Mavis Cournane
Michael Dill

Agenda:
1/ Review of 
    Action List:
TC/MHC?: To send information to MD
MB: To modify document 
    to cover agreed empty code list decision
PS: to provide his new 
    requirements in a list to the CLSC list for
inclusion in the Requirements 
    document

2/ Review of document status and timescales

3/ 
    AOB

Minutes:

1/ There are three remaining editing tasks to 
    complete the Requirements
section:
a) MB has sent Word formatted 
    version of the latest draft to TC and is
awaiting his edits. MB will ask 
    TC when this will be available.
b) PS has sent his input to MB. MB to 
    complete editing in these points asap.
c) SP raised whether the name 
    datamodel in the context of our document could
be renamed metamodel to 
    differentiate this from business data models. MB
proposed that some 
    wording changes could be introduced to clarify this
difference. MB to 
    propose changed text.

2/ MB will hopefully be able to complete the 
    editing ready for internal
circulation of teh Requirements Section in 
    time for it to be discussed and
hopefully approved on next week's call. 
    The next stage following SC approval
will be to send this to the csc for 
    eliciting comments from the other scs.

3/ AOB

a) SP raised the 
    issue that we probably need to clarify to what extent, if
any, our work 
    can influence the UBL 1.0 schema production. AH agreed and
reported that 
    lcsc decided on their 3rd Feb call to use the same code list
methodology 
    as for beta albeit the content will be reviewed and amended
where 
    necessary. It was agreed that SP should write a draft statement 
    and
circulate this in the first instance to the co-chairs.

b) SP, 
    on behalf of CN, aske MB whether he had been able to follow up with
Mark 
    Palmer with regards to input to the document. MB is to see MP 
    tomorrow
and following that he agreed to update the group with the latest 
    situation.

regards

Sue





Follow-Ups:

Re: [ubl] AW: [ubl-clsc] Informal minutes from telecon 4th Feb 2004
From: Tim McGrath <>








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

--

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