UBL-LCSC _ Minutes Teleconference

2002-04-16 _ mja/2002-04-16

Attendees: Lisa Seaburg, Sue Probert, Sally Chan, Joe Chiusano, Peter Yim, Ron Schultz (part time), Mike Adcock

1. Welcome from Chair & Appointment of Secretary

Lisa Seaburg took the chair as Tim McGrath was unable to participate due to a family situation.

Mike Adcock was appointed secretary for the meeting.

2. Acceptance of Previous Minutes

The minutes were accepted without change

3. Actions Arising from Previous Meeting

    1. Business process definition for SCM. Sally reported that she had sent files related to CCSD work. As yet has received no response from Arofan, so is unsure whether this is what Arofan wanted. Remains on the Actions List.
    2. Draft comments on CCTS expected from Tim, nothing received yet. Remains on the Actions List.

4. Current Review – Editorial Team Report

Peter reported that the group has had one conference call, Thursday April 11. There were three participants, Lisa, Sally, Peter. Gunther had expressed an interest in participating but did not join in.

The group decided they needed to compile a collection of all comments into a log, that gathers together the comment, what the comment is about, who made the comment, and how the comment was addressed in editing. The idea is to have all of the information travelling in the response, potentially sorted by subject. A proposed draft has been circulated within the edit team for comment.

The team has also discussed how to handle non-tabulated input into the edit process, such as ideas from the minutes of meetings and from unstructured e-mail comment.

They are also considering the idea of using a web form as a means of capturing input into a database.

The editorial team is open to more volunteer help, and their next conference call is Thursday 18 April. Lisa will send out a reminder and details for the teleconference call to everyone.

5. Workplan

  1. Mike reported on enriching the metamodel with business rules, logical conditions, and dependencies. He had posted a paper to the group minutes before the meeting. This identified five different types of dependencies/inter-relationships between data, and each was illustrated by at least one example from the Finance area. He also had some examples of relationships between information at different levels in highly structured messages, which needed more work before adding to the paper.

    2. The paper should be useful to draw out other peoples’ ideas: Sue felt she could add some more examples.

  2. Context – what do we capture? There was some uncertainty whether Arofan had provided a specific paper to the group or whether it was a paper provided to, say, another group. As Arofan was not a participant in the call, the subject was postponed to the next conference call. In the meantime Lisa would chase up Arofan.
  3. Develop & Document the Process. Tim had taken up this topic and worked on the original draft paper. Lisa would talk to Tim and possibly take over the activity. The topic was postponed until the next Tuesday conference call.
  4. Extending the model. Sally reported on last week’s discussion about which document should be tackled next. The range of documents belonging to the procurement area was discussed and a list created. This list needs the documents to be prioritised; the most likely ‘next candidates’ are Purchase Order Acknowledgement/Response and Purchase Order Change.

Peter commented that the edit team had some thoughts on the subject. He suggested that these ideas need to be exchanged on the list server so that we can have public discussion on priorities. Sally would send the list to everyone

General Note. It was agreed that the main aim should be for all exchanges of ideas to be as open as possible to gain wide input and comment. It was proposed that each e-mail should include an identification of the ‘key subject’ at beginning of message to help readers to easily follow particular ‘threads’ of discussion.

6. Status Reports from Other UBL SubCommittees

  1. Tools & Techniques. Neither Arofan or Gunther present so no report.
  2. Naming & Design Rules. Mark not present so no report.
  3. Context Drivers. Sue reported that she had been unable to join conference calls while in Australia so is unable to report.
  4. Context Assembly. Arofan not present so no report. Lisa will ask Arofan for progress report on his areas in time for next Tuesday conference call

7. Reports on Status of Other Related Projects

  1. Core Component Technical Specs: Lisa would talk to Tim about putting in comments to the CCTS. These would include NDR input. It was suggested that Lisa talk to Mark as CCTS edit team chair and/or Mike as a member of the edit team.
  2. Core Component Supplemental Documents: Sally reported that CCSD have not had their second teleconference yet. She expected to be able to report at our next Tuesday conference call.
  3. Ontology: Peter reported that since the ontology talk at our 02-Apr-02 Conference Call, he had had a couple of discussions with his two collaborators -- Leo Obrst and Jack Park . The ontologists were happy that their presentation was being carefully considered. Discussion about liaison possibilities triggered the question "how much time is involved?" which is difficult to answer. Leo, who is active in IEEE SUO (Standard Upper Ontology) working group and W3C WOW-G (Web Ontology Working-Group), might come to our next F2F if there is something specific on the agenda. Jack (a pioneer in XTM Topic Maps work) is happy to stay close to the group but can only keep in touch by e-mail. Peter will work with this sub-group to craft a small agenda programme for the next F2F as a matter of urgency. Sue and Mike will contribute from an EWG T8 perspective.

8. There was no other business.

9. Next meeting is same time on Tuesday 23 April, 14.00 hrs UTC.

Concern was expressed that the change of time may be the reason for the reduced participation.

ACTION ITEMS FOR FOLLOW UP