ubl — archive

AW: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))

From: Michael Dill
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:24:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






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

--

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








Subject: AW: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))




From: "Michael Dill" <[email protected]>
To: "'Stig Korsgaard'" <[email protected]>,"'Tim McGrath'" <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>,<[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:30:44 +0200






Sorry, my understanding is that the draft ACCs were approved as Draft ACC.
1-cent

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stig Korsgaard [mailto:[email protected]]
Gesendet: Montag, 5. Juli 2004 16:17
An: Michael Dill; Tim McGrath; [email protected]; [email protected]
Betreff: RE: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs
(Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))


Ok, here is my 2-cent opinion:
 
Mark is correct in pointing out the issues with the current UBL Library in
relation to applying CCTS and the missing CC�s.
 
Tim is correct that there is a cooperation with UBL and TBG17, and this
should work in the way that UBL uses CCTS to build its library, it uses
TBG17 SGP and submission form to submit to TBG17, and TBG17 gives back the
result which UBL implements. If not, well I agree with Sue, that then there
is not much point in the exercise.
 
Michael is not correct in that the first draft ACC�s has been TBG approved,
but they hopefully will by Washington. For SGP this is also true!
 
In summary:
Could the current UBL Library be better in relation to compliance with CCTS?
- Yes!
 
Will we soon have CC�s to work with? - Yes!
 
Will TBG17 respond to the UBL submission? - Yes?
 
Will UBL comply with the response and feedback? - That is left to be seen!
 
But one thing is for sure: There is no reason, no point, no resources and no
way that UBL should keep a separate track nor even begin to consider being a
full-time proprietary standards organisation in the area of data
definitions, maintenance, etc. There are more than enough of those.

Best Regards 

Stig Korsgaard 
M.Sc.E Standardisation Manager 
Tel:    +45 3370 1083 
Cell:   +45 2725 9083 
Mail:   [email protected] 

Danish Bankers Association 
Amaliegade 7 
DK-1256 Copenhagen K 
Tel:    3370 1000 
Fax:    3393 0260 
[email protected] 
www.finansraadet.dk