Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 9 November 2005

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

MINUTES OF ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING
16H00 - 18H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 9 NOVEMBER 2005

ATTENDANCE

   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Stephen Green
   Michael Grimley
   Sylvia Webb
   Mikkel Brun
   Andy Schoka
   Paul Thorpe
   Anne Hendry
   Tony Coates
   Zarella Rendon

STANDING ITEMS

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

      None.

   Liaison report: Tax XML TC

      SW: Due to resource constraints, the Tax XML TC has decided
      that it will create a single guideline for Invoice rather
      than attempt a guideline for every UBL document.  It will
      cover two jurisdictions: EU (including the UK) and U.S.
      They need a template or format for these guidelines.  They
      also need specific requirements for guidelines from
      particular jurisdictions using UBL, for example, what kind
      of information will be useful.  They are trying for a first
      draft at the end of December, then an additional draft
      following the f2f scheduled for the last week in February.

      JB: This should be added to the Support Package.

   Team report: Code Lists

      TC: Have identified a problem that GKH was having; will make
      a small change to accommodate.

   Liaison report: ebBP TC

      SG: Starting to work on the full set of business process
      ebBP definitions based on the full set of UBL 1.0 docs. We
      need some help with business knowledge of UBL docs and how
      they fit in with business processes, how these docs are
      meant to be used... hard and fast rules, actual process
      definitions.

      ACTION: MB to talk to PB and see if Denmark can help out
      with business process for input to ebBP.

      AS: CEFACT has developed business process specs that can be
      found on the UNECE site under UN/CEFACT: "business
      requirement specification"... cross-industry invoice.

      SG: Will look at that and talk to SW about this.

      SG: Anything we can say about how to produce a package?

      JB: Suggest they do what we're doing in producing the
      nonnormative parts as a separate deliverable.

   Subcommittee report: SBSC

      SG: Have forwarded us a recommendation from the SBSC FOR
      CD2; see link in mail.

      JB: Will put on the agenda for the next Atlantic call (23
      November).

   Review of Pacific and Europe/Asia calls

      No comment.

ACTION ITEM REVIEW

   ACTION: JB to poll the TC for attendance at the April F2F in
   Brussels.

      Done.

   ACTION: TC members visiting NYC in October or November to check
   out the Sun facilities and see whether they are suitable for a
   UBL TC meeting.  JB will be coming through in mid-November and
   will also check then.

      Status: Pending.

   ACTION: Everyone involved in the development of the support
   pieces to give JB time estimates.

      JB: We have estimates for SBS from SG.  We still need
      estimates for code lists, HISC, and the business process
      scenarios.

   ACTION: MB to check with PB regarding time estimates for the
   business process scenarios.

      MB: We need PB on the call.

      JB: Have him send email.

   ACTION: NDR editors to propose a suitable version attribute to
   be used by all UBL instances in time for discussion during the
   Atlantic TC call 9 November.

      Done.

NDR WORK SESSION: MINOR VERSIONING

We took a couple of items out of order so that SW could leave the
meeting early.

 - How does the version value get into the instance?  Any
   implications for EF programming?

      SW: Version info gets put into EF manually, and then EF puts
      it in the schemas; we just need to know where the version
      info is in the schema.

      MG: In the version attribute.

      SW: So we're already covered; we already do that.

      AGREED that EF is told the version manually; EF puts that in
      the [schema] version attribute, and the application puts it
      in the instance.

      Therefore EF needs to know what the UBL version attribute or
      element in the instance is, and whether a default value will
      be put there.

      AGREED that the version value will be of type text with a
      default value of the most recent version. [I'm not quite
      sure what that last bit means.]

 - We have to remember that "2.0" in namespaces changes to "2"
   throughout.

      SW: DK says he can implement it this week.

[SW leaves before the following discussion.]

 - The proposed version attribute:
      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00073.html

      AGREED to make UBLVersion an element rather than an
      attribute in order to avoid possible problems with CCTS.

      MG: So first rule is OK, but must rewrite second and change
      the rule about instances.

 - Redefine and minor versioning:
      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00080.html

      MG: We need to test redefine more to see whether it is
      usable in customization and check tool support. Everyone
      agrees it's the way to go unless there is a prob with
      customization or tools.  We're in the process of
      investigating this.

      SG: [Regarding the decision to use "2" rather than "2.0" in
      namespaces] We should drop the minor version number from the
      file names as well.

      AGREED to use "2" in the major version file names rather
      than "2.0".

      AGREED that the version number is required.

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC