Re: [ubl-ssc] Proposal from China/F2F for enhanced structure

Hi Sue,

 

Previously I had added the TBG17 layout spreadsheet 
as a linked

worksheet behind the UBL layout worksheet in every 
appropriate

spreadsheet file. It looks like now we'll have to 
update both of these.

Would this solution still be appropriate? It would 
need some work 

to update it. I had the TBG17 cells driven by 
formulas referencing

the respective cells in the UBL layout 
worksheet.

 

On the other hand, changing to just use the TBG17 
layout would need

a TC decision and last time the problem against it 
was that it didn't

have everything in it that UBL needs for its design 
process. In short

the UBL layout is for design and the TBG17 layout 
for reporting to

TBG17. If there is no value keeping both, I'd agree 
we could just

produce one or the other but I think there may 
still be value in 

producing and publishing both. I guess this is for 
the modelers to

decide.

 

All the best

 

Steve

  
----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Sue Probert 

  
To: Stephen Green 

  
Cc:  
  

  
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 1:21 PM

  
Subject: RE: [ubl-ssc] Proposal from 
  China/F2F for enhanced structure

  

  
Hi 
  Stephen

  
 

  
If 
  the spreadsheet structure is to be reviewed to cover ACCs as well, then I 
  suggest that the latest TBG17 submission template structure should be taken 
  into consideration. Marion can provide this as the UNBL liaison 
  to TBG17.  The closer that these two spreadsheet 
  templates become, the easier the submission to the UN/CEFACT ACC Library 
  harmonisation process becomes. Also, as EDIFIX understands the TBG17 
  format this should make for less unnecessary mapping 
  exercises.

  
 

  
regards

  
 

  
Sue

  
 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green 
  [mailto:]
Sent: 20 May 2005 
  12:43
To: 
Subject: [ubl-ssc] 
  Proposal from China/F2F for enhanced structure

  
Greetings

  
 

  
I have it down that we should be meeting 
  next

  
Thursday so I thought I'd propose that 
  we

  
take a little time to consider the 
  proposals

  
from China (following plenary 
  discussions)

  
for how to enhance the spreadsheets' 

  
modular structure to cater for 
  expansion

  
and CC requirements.

  
 

  
I'm not sure how the timescale is 
  envisiaged

  
for this. I'm also concerned to get 
  feedback

  
on how things will be if we don't have a 
  set

  
of instructions from NDR team until near 
  the

  
end of June (as the schedules have 
  been

  
indicating recently).

  
 

  
I wrote to the TC a response (sorry it was 
  hurried

  
and poorly set out due to time 
  constraints) to the

  
spreadsheets proposal which might help 
  discussion.

  
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200505/msg00068.html

  
 

  
I've also prototyped another set of 
  schemas

  
to see whether version 2.0 could easily 
  use

  
the ATG2 datatype schemas and how 
  future

  
minor releases might use polymorphism. 
  This

  
isn't yet agreed in NDR but might have 
  been

  
discussed in the Wed Atlantic call in time 
  for

  
our meeting on Thursday.

  
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200505/msg00067.html

  
 

  
Would folk be able to attend 
  Thursday?

  
It might be agood idea to aim to 
  attend

  
the Wed TC call too as I hope there 
  will

  
be further discussion of the 2.0 
  schema

  
requirements.

  
 

  
All the best

  
 

  
Steve