UBL LCSC Minutes

Tuesday - July 9, 2002

Attendees: Tim McGrath (chair), Bill Meadows, Lisa Seaburg, Terry Schager, Ron Schuldt, Debbie Quezadaz, Monica Martin, Joe Chuisano, Sue Probert, Gunther Stuhec, Ray Seddigh.

1. Welcome from Chair and appointment of Secretary to take minutes - Joe Chuisano volunteered

2. Acceptance of previous minutes - Minutes from last 4 weeks accepted as amended, since we had quorum

3. Action arising from previous meeting

• Comments on Code vs. Identifier White Paper from Mike Adcock (Sue then All).
  • Ron made comments in earlier round - how do you feel now Ron?
  • Ron: Accurately reflects the distinction between code and identifier - both are necessary, and paper accurately reflects that view
  • Monica - sent comments to Mike - to add more concrete examples - no changes to paper yet
  • Tim - proposes we put the paper as is on web site, as with methodology doc - comments until 7/30/02 - include Monica's comment
• Work on the Tools requirements doc. (Tim and Gunther) -
• Distribute Date and Time White Paper (includes Mike Adcock comments) (Gunther)
  • Gunther and Mike (?) not here - Gunther will be on call soon; defer to later
  • Alan S. has made comments also
  • Tim - has a concern - there needs to be something that creates the bigger picture - delves into details without defining the problem it solves - may be too pedantic
  • From Alan's perspective - Tim has same concern - going into fine level of detail, but there is possibly an application-level usage of the details
  • Have (a) point in time and (b)duration of time - these are the 2 lowest-level [X]'s - everything else is derived from these
  • Can do this for measurements also - why do we do this for times, but not for measurements?
  • If this paper did not exist, what are some of the interoperability problems that may exist?
  • Tim (to Gunther) - we'd like to publish this to web site as a draft, and open up for comments
  • Tim - comments will be UBL-wide comments (open to any UBL people) - but Gunther and Mike should consider handling them
  • Sue - we and NDR are looking at the same subject from 2 different points of view - make sure we keep things in sync - i.e. a comment that affects one side should be sent to other side
  • Lisa will publish document and ensure that it complies with the Oasis template.
  • Tim - Code vs. Identifier needs to be put into template as well.
  • Lisa - call Code vs. Identifier a position paper? Yes
  • Gunther used template for Date/Time paper.
• Distribute draft of the Methodology Paper (Tim)
  • Tim has received no comments as of today.
  • What to do? Lisa would like to put out as a draft on LCSC web page, so that NDR can look at as well
    • Deadline for comments 7/30/02
    • We have quorum - voted on deadline (ACCEPTED)
    • Is title appropriate? Reader may expect more in a document of this title; Title stands - unless someone can come up with a better title by 7/30/02
    • Methodology doc (with minor amendments) will be put up on web site
    • Lisa to send Tim document in proper template and typo corrections.
    • Tim to give Lisa covering note for document.
    • Tim - since we are asking for comments - run through liaison group? Tim will run by Jon B. - this is more of an internal comment period - liaison group will have a chance to review it later.
    • Sue: Call it a "cross-posting to NDR for comments" instead of review.
• Update Schema Generator by 5 July (Gunther). -
  • Gunther:it is in process and will work more next week, Tim: need this done in 2 weeks so there is some slack.
  • Apply outstanding comments to the model during the week of 9th July.  Then apply global changes (names, re-usable types, data type, alignment with position papers, etc.) by the 23rd July. By the 30th July we should be able to consolidate and then approve this version.  This would enable us to publish in the first week of August in keeping with our Minneapolis plan.
• Finish changes to spreadsheet, develop template for Bill to work with (Lisa).
  • This is done and has been distributed. We would like feedback.
• Have Order Response spreadsheet done (Lisa/Bill M.)
• Speak to Oracle about XML database (Debbie/Garrett).
  • PENDING - Will ask Gunther when he joins call, Gunther - in process - started an e-mail to Debbie

4. Work plan

• Methodology (Bob,Tim)
• Code/Identifier (Sue, Mike)
• Date/Time (Gunther,Mike)
• Class Diagram Librarian (Frank) - Deferred until Frank or Gunther can be available.
• Order Response (Bill, Lisa)
  • Lisa sent out yesterday
  • Tim - would anyone like to open up discussion of this?
  • Lisa - Order Response in many XML libraries (including xCBL) is usually a mirror of Order document in terms of structure
  • We are not doing that
  • Has 7 elements - called "Order Response Details" - wanted to keep it short
  • Bill looked at both X12 and EDIFACT - to make sure we have everything we need for a SHORT response
  • Looking at codelists, there may be other things this document could handle - line 71 "AcknowledgementReponseCode"
  • Looked at 1225 from EDIFACT - saw that as an ack, it is Accepted, Rejected, Duplicate or Cancellation (cancel entire order) - i.e. more than just Accept or Reject
  • Terry - has seen a blanket order response - may want to accommodate that - different than an accept or reject
  • Ray - what is purpose of Order Response? Can have 3 or 4 purposes
  • Someone else - as we discussed, will not contain changes (item or header-level)
  • Tim - business process model we are following came from Boeing example (and others) - first step in Order Response is that we will either accept or reject (i.e. Yes/No)
  • If seller needs changes - they would use a different response document (which we will tackle in future)
  • Ray - can have inclusion of full order in response
  • Tim - we decided not to do that - would have order identifier instead (line 68)
  • Tim - should not duplicate any info on original order
  • Someone - item-level changes needed
  • Tim - will be a later document
  • Tim - this message is a long way down the track from being what we need (?)
  • Will take more comments
  • Some of the response type codes need explaining - ex: Cancellation
  • Sue - send out a list and ask folks if they think this is a sensible list of possibilities
  • Tim - folks ponder this between now and next call - will bring up in next call
  • Lisa - send her codes to be included and comments - will incorporate into spreadsheet before next week's call - will incorporate into spreadsheet
  • Ron - have developed a set of codes that their industry needs for this type of message
    • - based on X12 4010
  • Ron - how do we seek input from various industries that need to use these messages? - reinventing a wheel
  • Tim - process is our liaison review forum - various vertical industries and other standards bodies comment on our work
    • - Trying to come up with an 80/20 solution
    • - Started with xCBL which by definition started with other libraries (EDI?) - so there is a legacy of inheritance there
  • Ron - asked Lisa about AIA
  • Sue - can add context-sensitive additions in future
  • Tim - over next week, people should feed their comments to Lisa through the list
  • Lisa - will try to consolidate them all into a new version to present next week
  • Lisa - spreadsheet will be large if all documents are in it - should she leave reusable types in there?
  • Tim - if we include reusable types, will have duplicate maintenance - better to keep in one spot
  • Tim - left it to Lisa to decide - whatever is most comfortable for her
• Private vs Standard Identifier (Frank, Mike, Gunther)

  Deferred - Gunther not on call, Gunther - sent draft of position paper to Mike Adcock - in progress - has not heard from Mike

• Actioning Disposition tasks (Various)
• Other Work Items:
  • Comments on order package (?) - Lisa - no input yet from Tim - several others owe her things
  • Lisa - will send out new action item list COB today or tomorrow - LOOK FOR THAT IN E-MAIL
  • Lisa - sent around some HTML documents (reusable types) - will add to work items list ("Definitions Documents") - MONICA HAD COMMENTS ON ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION - I WILL LOOK IN E-MAIL - it is "QA'ing of Definitions"
  • Lisa - also QA'ing of spreadsheet formulas - some names that were created had spaces in them - not valid for schemas
  • Monica and Sue - would be happy to help with this action item - Lisa would like to get Mike involved as well
  • *** This is called "QA'ing of Naming and Definitions" ***
  • We all need to do this - but having a sub-group will allow us to help make decisions
  • Subgroup can have a start and then perhaps put out a work item for group to look at
  • Lisa to put [something] out on site today - have already sent out to group
  • Lisa - we should report on something every week - either her or whoever is on call - discuss larger issues that they have found
  • Lisa and Monica will start - and Lisa will report progress next week

5. Requirements for tools and techniques

• a database be constructed using the meta-model as its schema which will become the main repository of the UBL model.
• a graphical notation such as UML Class Diagrams to provide a top-level, exploding view.
• both a. and b. should be combined in a single repository with tools to generate the appropriate views.

6. Reports on status of other UBL subcommittees

• Tools and technique sc (Arofan)

  Mike's paper on Assembly - potentially another position paper, Mike will be on call next week - will discuss, Sue - people should read between now and next week

• Naming and design rules sc (anyone)

  Lisa - last week's NDR call: Gunther's scripts, Facets, Code lists, etc.

  Tim - will talk to Eve about Date/Time paper - ensure that we are synchronized

• Context drivers sc (Sue)

  Sue - will work more on it this week with Arofan

• Context assembly sc (Arofan)
• Chairs sc (Tim)

  Tim - First meeting - will be next Monday. This is the forum for subjects that overlap between groups.

7. Reports on status of other related projects

• Core Component Technical Specs (Mike/Lisa)

  Sue - meeting next week - some comments have been posted on the disposition. Aiming to have version 1.9 by end of week - will have dealt with all comments received

8. Scheduling

Tim - planned to issue a new review package by end of July - would include new version of library (spreadsheet model and schema) and better documentation (methodology and position papers)

We are reasonably on target if we can complete some of the housekeeping jobs

Starting next week - can apply "global QA" - editing team (see above - Lisa, Sue, etc.) will do this

• Codes and Identifies paper - editing team will ensure that we have complied with rules of that paper
• Same for other 2 position papers
• But need to agree on papers first - over next 2 weeks
• 7/23/02 - have draft form of package for us to review
• End of July - publish

Lisa - ok - editing team can perform that role

Tim - can afford some slippage on deadline, but best if we try ti keep to it.

He also needs to inform UBL liaison committee that a package is on the way for review

9. Other Business - None

10. Next meeting - Next Tuesday, 16 July 2002, same telephone and conference numbers.