UBL LCSC Meeting Minutes

Date: 21 May 2002

Attendees: Monica Martin, Tim McGrath, Peter Yim, Lisa Seaburg, Bill Meadows, Marion Royal, Sally Chan, Mike Adcock, Gunther Stuhec, Arofan Gregory, Mark Crawford, Kurt Conrad

1. Welcome from Chair and appointment of Secretary to take minutes

2. Acceptance of previous minutes - Can't accept minutes because we don't have a quorum.

We were joined half way through, by the group from Barcelona, this then gave us quorum. We forgot to accept minutes at this point, so they will need to be accepted at next meeting.

3. Action arising from previous meeting

• Post latest NDR Code List papers (Tim)
• Examples of: Codes and Identifiers (All)
  • It is suggested that everybody reads the NDR document for Code Lists. We will be looking at this document as we do our examples.
• Business process for Order Response (Tim, Sally, Mike)
• Carried over from previous meeting:
  • These we may have to get further info on in Minneapolis when we have Arofan there.
  • Examples of: context drivers (Arofan)
  • Business process model for SCM (Arofan)
  • Draft context paper to be distributed (Arofan via Lisa)

4. Current Review - Editorial Team report

• Outstanding issues - None
• Schedule for release to SC - It has been released to the LCSC group through the distribution list. We will be disposing of these beginning at the face to face. Using document and category of items and walk out way through document and try to achieve concensus of how to deal with them. Lets try to dispose of these cleanly as we go through. It is suggested that with the elaborate comments, we might want to make sure that the commentor is present at time of go through. If that is not possible, try to get comment clarified more.
• This is on the agenda for the face to face.
• It is noted that Peter had sent out email to Martin Byrant regarding clarity of his comments. His comments were really directed to the CCTS, not UBL. Peter also sent an email to Gunther asking them if they wanted to jump in on these, please do. No response yet.
• The editorial teams deliverable is the spreadsheet. Between now and the face to face, the rest of the LCSC should read through this document, so that we can discuss them at that meeting.

5. Work plan

• Enriching the metamodel
  • dependencies, business rules (Mike): we don't have a formal way of doing dependencies yet. Has anyone seen the argument that Arofan put forward yet.
  • facets paper (Gunther): this is describing the problem of how to represent the information in XSD format. How to represent data formats like decimals, etc. There is work being done in this area. We need to address a formal way of describing these things and whether or not they are purely a subset of type or not.
• Extending the model - Order Response
  • reach an agreement on scope of document: [Tim: without input from Mike and Sally, we actually have reached an agreement on the scope of this document we call Order Response. My understanding is that the Order Response document is to be used as a business level acknowledgement of the acceptance or rejection of the Order. Its requirement as a data structure is to clearly identify the Order it is acknowledging. Some of the issue are: can it reply to multiple orders or is it one to one. It is also thought it would be an ack to the Order Change and Order Cancellation also - Mike and Sally have not responded to this query yet. It seemed from Mike's point of view that he was comfortable with that. Sally has referred us to the Boeing.
  • Bill: are we dropping the response where the Order would request a new Order. EDI tends to use one document to do these different functions.
  • Tim: It is a document that suggests a revision, and needs to be revised. Amendments would go as a separate document than the Order Response. We are trying to use the function of the business process as a guide, not what other document types do. Try and have separate documents for every business function is what this suggests. EDI uses broadbased documents with flags for different uses, we are looking at many different documents for each function. Doing it this way does not make the EDI correlation simple.
  • Tim: We are not going to have one message with 16 different uses, we will have 16 different messages. The reuses comes from the semantic clarity. You don't need to have references to a lot of code references tables to figure out what it is. Lets push this into an email debate, this needs to be resolves before we get to face to face.
  • what needs to be done to our Order model (broad principles)

  6. Reports on status of other UBL subcommittees

  • Tools and technique sc (Arofan) - No report.
  • Naming and design rules sc (Lisa)

    This group has been working through their position paper on Code lists and discussing each option available. They will be looking for our feedback on their decisions.

    This group has position papers on: Facets for Content, Code Lists, Elements vs. Attributes, ModNamVer (Modularity, Namespaces and Versioning), Uniquely Identifying Native Context for Tag Names, Definition of Elements, Attributes, and Types.

    As they finalize each position paper, the final report goes into the Naming and Design Rule Specification document which is now on Working Draft Version 0.06.

  • Context drivers sc (Sue) - No report.
  • Context assembly sc (Arofan) - No report.

  7. Reports on status of other related projects

  • Core Component Technical Specs (Mike/Lisa)
    • They will be going through the comments received (ours and others) at their face to face this week. We supplied them with editable versions of our document. We should be hearing back after their meeting concludes.
  • Ontology sub-group (Peter)
    • With the help of Tim and Eve and all those involved in crafting agenda. Is the lunch meeting on the first day, 1-1/2 hours. Tim: Plan on an hour, unless the change is known. We don't know.
    • Peter and Leo have three things that need to be reduced to this time slot. Peter is concerned that there will be enough time. Tim will talk directly with Jon to make this time slot work for Peter and Leo. (1.5 hours)
    • Day Two is a sub committee meetings for interested parties. Peter is trying to use face to face time to position the approach.

      It was at this point that the group at the ebtwg meeting in Barcelona joined us. We were discussing the Ontology and how we can apply this to what we are doing.

    • Lisa: I strongly suggest this be put forth as a postion paper to the LCSC group. Tim feels it is time to find out if this is important to us, and it is time to figure this out. This may be a process issue at this point. We need to handle items like this Ontology issue with some sort of process.
    • Peter and Tim: It is important to use the face to face time to properly position the Ontology to see if it is something we need to pursue. Peter is hoping to use the Thursday morning call to kick off the Ontology subgroup.

  8. Face to Face Agenda

  A draft of the agenda has been distributed. Changing Tuesday to include the joint NDR group.

  We took a show of hands of who is going to the face to face.

  We have put the distribution comments on the agenda for Wednesday.

  9. Other Business

  The conference call slot on Thursdays is now open. Peter is going to use this call slot for a call about anybody interested in being on the call. Peter has a list of interested people, please contact him if you are interested and think you are not on the list. Tim suggested Peter email the UBL-comments list to see if anyone there is interested.

  New Oasis TC that has just been established. CTML (Trade Facilitations Markup Language?? I think) this is something we should keep.

  • Mark: This group is already establishing a liaison with UBL. This may be done in an OASIS coordinating committee. As the vocabulary - is this the group that should be within EWG??? There is some question about this. Mark: Jon's original charter for the library content group, that it will eventually be branching out to these different groups.
  • Tim: But we are developing a core to their work.
  • Mark: We have a lot of work in front of us developing the proceedures for how this will be used.
  • Mark: There is discussion about the development of this work on the CEFACT side. The chair of D2 is going to talk to the chair of this new TC and discuss this.
  • Gunther: Hartmut Hermes would like to come to the face to face also. Hartmut sat in on one of our Barcelona meetins, we would love to have him with us.

  Discussion with Jon relating to an issue called horizontal integration. The role of UBL in terms of other vocabularies, things like OAG, CIDX and how we position ourselves to these well established vocabularies. Within UBL we need a mechanisim to the lowest common denominated to lower forms of data (ie, print).

  Action Items for LCSC members:

  1. Finalize scope issues on Order Response document.
  2. Review Distribution Comments document.
  3. Review Code List NDR document, be prepared for discussion with NDRSC at face to face.
  4. Finish draft of agenda for Face to Face in Minneapolis.
  5. Dependencies, business rules (Mike)
  6. Examples of: context drivers (Arofan)
  7. Draft context paper to be distributed (Arofan)

  10. Next meeting.

  23 May 2002, Thursday at 9 PST, call slot to be used by Peter Yim for Ontology.

  28 May 2002, Tuesday at 8am PST - Tim is not available, Marion will run meeting.

  Planning to attend the Face to Face: Tim, Lisa, Marion, Peter (Mon and Tues), Mike, Monica and Arofan. This is not everybody from LCSC and we are expected a few more. Should have quorum at our meetings so that we can vote on decisions.