Re: [ubl] Completely revised work plan for PRD3

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[swebb@gefeg.com:]

| I was expecting a new set of spreadsheets to address the minor
| edits you mention below. Are my expectations correct? I haven't
| received anything yet.

At the beginning of the message below, I said:

   Given the fact that we can't get all the nonsubstantive changes
   in by the time UBL 2.0 CD balloting ends Wednesday, I'm going
   to suggest that we do just the opposite: go to public review
   with PRD3 just the way it is (with only the addition of the
   ASN.1 schemas, which I'm still expecting before Wednesday, and
   a revised qDT module), and log all the changes I enumerated
   previously as nonsubstantive issues to be resolved after the
   public review.  This way we can incorporate all the
   nonsubstantive revisions in a single pass.

So I'm suggesting no changes at all, just the way it is in PRD3
except we add the ASN.1 schemas (if I get them by Wednesday) and
the revised qDT module.  The latter can either be hand-generated
or machine-generated, your choice.

Since we can't get the diagrams updated in time, we will have
nonsubstantive mods to make to the package in any case, so why not
do it all in one pass -- that's all I'm suggesting.  Much easier
to schedule and much less risk of screwing something up.

Don't get me wrong: it would be nice to have this work done in
advance.  So if someone wants to go through the items I've listed
below and get them all done in the next 24 hours, then I say go
for it.

Jon

   Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:09:04 -0700
   From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com>
   Cc: peter.borresen@datalent.dk

   Jon,

   I was expecting a new set of spreadsheets to address the minor edits you
   mention below. Are my expectations correct? I haven't received anything yet.

   Sylvia 

   -----Original Message-----
   From: jon.bosak@sun.com [mailto:jon.bosak@sun.com] 
   Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:10 AM
   To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
   Cc: peter.borresen@datalent.dk
   Subject: [ubl] Completely revised work plan for PRD3

   Given the fact that we can't get all the nonsubstantive changes in by the
   time UBL 2.0 CD balloting ends Wednesday, I'm going to suggest that we do
   just the opposite: go to public review with
   PRD3 just the way it is (with only the addition of the ASN.1 schemas, which
   I'm still expecting before Wednesday, and a revised qDT module), and log all
   the changes I enumerated previously as nonsubstantive issues to be resolved
   after the public review.
   This way we can incorporate all the nonsubstantive revisions in a single
   pass.

   More specifically....

   Week of 18 September:

    - GEFEG provides revised qDT module by time of Pacific TC call
      00:30 - 02:30 UTC Tuesday 19 September 2006 (this is Monday
      evening in New York), or earlier if possible

    - Thorpe provides ASN.1 schemas by time of Pacific TC call

    - Lemming provides PRD3 change log by time of Pacific TC call

    - Bosak rebuilds package Tuesday

    - Bosak puts out call for "successful use" statements

    - PRD3 is submitted to OASIS Thursday morning

    - Holman converts index file to DocBook (that's actually supposed
      to happen this weekend, but it won't become relevant till after
      PRD3 goes in to OASIS)

   Week of 25 September (first week of public review):

    - McGrath revises artwork

    - Bosak and McGrath propose wording changes for review by PSC and
      TSC based on input summarized below

    - PSC and TSC (1) review previous copy edits and (2)
      accept/reject further proposed edits

    - UBL TC members prepare statements of "successful use" in
      preparation for OASIS Standardization

   Week of 2 October (second week of public review):

    - TC reviews revised spreadsheets

    - 2.0 editors debug new docbook-based production and collate
      materials required for Standardization submission

   Week of 9 October:

    - Review public comments and make further nonsubstantive changes

    - Revise the package

    - Ballot the package as a Committee Specification

   If anyone has a problem with this plan, please let us know ASAP.
   Otherwise I'll expect to have the change log, the revised qDT module, and
   the ASN.1 schemas by the time of the Pacific call.

   I've reproduced the nonsubstantive issues list below for reference.

   Jon

   ==================================================================

   ##################################################################
   Schema generation corrections
   ##################################################################

   1. Revise qDT module to change each qDT from

	 <xsd:extension base="xsd:normalizedString">

      to

	 <xsd:restriction base="udt:CodeType">

      (Note that this does not affect UBL instances.)

   2. Change copyright from 

	 Copyright (C) OASIS Open 2001-2005. All Rights Reserved.

      to

	 Copyright (C) OASIS Open 2001-2006. All Rights Reserved.

   ##################################################################
   Spreadsheet corrections
   ##################################################################

   1. The copy edits made last month have not been reviewed yet.
      Someone with business knowledge needs to take responsibility
      for this. (J. Bosak) See:

      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200608/msg00077.html
      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200608/msg00078.html

   2. The note on column A in the spreadsheets says that columns with
      grey headings are not part of the normative schemas; but
      columns A and B have grey headings, and they are normative.
      (J. Bosak)

   3. Regularize the definitions of UUID per

      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200609/msg00006.html
      (G. K. Holman)

   4. "The RemittanceLine definitions all say Statement instead of
      Remittance." (S. Green)

   5. "TransportEvent has the general Event definition." (S. Green)

   6. "The definition for LineResponse may be incorrect."  (S. Green)

   7. "The definitions for all but one element in the ReminderLine
      are those for StatementLine and refer to Statement in error."
      (S. Green)

   8. "Should there be a difference between TransactionConditions and
      TradingTerms?" (S. Green)

   9. "Minor grammar error in definition of Party/PhysicalLocation
      '... may visited...' should read '...may be visited...' and
      'visited' is not a desirable term here." (S. Green)

   ##################################################################
   Artwork corrections
   ##################################################################

   1. "The Transportation Status document type is not described in
      the Initiate Service Process diagram (Figure 19)." (Y. Saito)

   2. "The informative UML diagrams are missing the new Item,
      Quantity, and Price in CreditNoteLine and DebitNoteLine."
      (P. Borresen)