Minutes lcsc CC meeting 04.12.01

Attended: Tim McGrath, Mark Crawford, Marion Royal, Lisa Seaburg, Sue Probert (minutes), Arofan Gregory, Peter Yim, Sally Chan.

• Accepted minutes of previous meeting.
• Marion sent out order summary info this morning – agreed to discuss this and Gunther’s input later in the call.
• Sue reported that CDSC not yet started.
• Sue reported on the progress within the NDRSC and mentioned that tag naming in particular is in contention right now. Tim conformed that tag naming is key and we must work closely with NDRSC on this. Marion raised the issue of structured UIDs and referred to his earlier paper circulated re UDEF specs. Tim suggested that it is key to make sure that this paper is made available to the ndrsc. This suggests that UIDs be built up structurally from standard classifications.
• UBL meeting schedule as proposed by Jon was discussed – no particular concerns raised.
• XML2001 Jon is presenting a UBL status report – Tim has provided him with lcsc input.
• Tim reported on OASIS CIQ (customer info quality) group who are working on naming for postal addresses. They are working separately from UPU as they have a wider purview. They will be writing schemas for distribution mailing lists and have defined DTDs covering name, address and an XML vocabulary and are currently tackling the relationships between addresses. Tim had done the exercise of mapping against the xCBL nameaddress structures and a complete mapping was possible. This input may be useful as background for us and for the UN/CEFACT CC work. The question is how will these standards relate to the UBL standards from the OASIS point of view. CIQ has been adopted by the Microsoft vcard type web service called JAGGED or similar? Also how should we align with them if at all? Agreed to put this on the background info folder.
• Tim raised the question of the difficulties of modeling the xCBL schemas. Arofan suggested that schematron secondary validation could provide a way forward. Tim thought that we need specific examples which could be given to Dave Carlson to assist his modeling work. Arofan agreed to produce some.
• Marion and Gunther’s recent work has raised some questions re common methodologies across the teams. Marion raised the issue of the amount of work that will be required.
• Peter is a week behind the other teams and is using a spreadsheet approach and he expressed great interest in the work from the other teams. He has had reservations about the subdivisions of this work so early to add to the concerns raised by Mark earlier. He suggested that the overall structure of UBL might be readdressed for a while longer as we might need to work together more at these early stages.
• Arofan raised a couple of questions re Marion’s and Mark’s work particularly regarding the naming classes for CCs. The definitions of the columns was raised as a question. Tim suggested that we need an input guide for the spreadsheet itself to maximize commonality of content. Time agreed to try put some instructions together and then the spreadsheet will be recirculated. Context parameters not yet added but will be added on a further pass through.
• Gunther explained his contribution which was based on XML spy. This is presenting the base inputs of xCBL and the CC catalog analysis. Mark confirmed that Gunther’s input had helped them in the spreadsheet work both from the business content and the properties. There was discussion on how and what exactly the teams are supposed to be doing. Tim asked him to continue his work to extend some of his work to show what the BIEs would look like especially what their structures would look like. Arofan interested in specifying the tools aspects in liaison with the tools sc. Marion also suggested that it would be interesting for Gunther to run his tool over their results.
• Tim suggested that next week we should review the methodology and objectives in light of these valuable experiences. Arofan requested info from Mark and Marion on how they filled the columns and some clarifications were agreed. Tim requested Arofan and Mark to list any changes to the spreadsheet structure to better align it with Gunther’s methodology and the overall UBL objectives e.g. addition of cardinality. How do we deal with attributes, enumerations for code lists. The objective will be to send out an updated spreadsheet and a set of instructions asap.
• We discussed the possible ways that we can incorporate critical business expertise e.g. procurement. We can do this via invited experts or encouragement to get new official members. Tim requested to invite Mike Adcock to join next week’s meeting as invited expert.
• Sally asked whether mapping to other standards such as OAGIS or Rosettanet etc. Tim confirmed that they can take part and contribute their input into the current exercise and it was discussed how we could encourage liaison.