UBL Transport SubCommittee MEETING Minutes 4 Sep 08

Minutes of the UBL Transport SubCommittee MEETING

4 September 2008

 

 

Attendance:

Tim McGrath (UBL TC
Vice Chair)

Anne Hendrey

Al Viele

Jan Pedersen

Andy Schoka (Chair)

 

 

Agenda Item 1. STANDING ITEMS

There is a new web site for things UBL, see

http://ubl.xml.org

 

Agenda Item 2. DEVELOPING UBL 2.1 UPDATE TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS

 

TM reviewed the schedule for UBL 2.1. UBL 2.1 is targetted for
publication in the 

Mar/Apr 2009 timeframe.  To achieve that target, there are a
number of steps that 

need to be completed in the process,  including a 60 day public
review, a possible 

10 day public review, as well as an internal TSC and internal OASIS
voting periods. 

This means that we have until about the end of October to capture, document,
and 

agree on changes that will be in UBL 2.1.

 

AS continued the discussion with a report back from a recent TC meeting
where he 

asked about the process of submitting requirements for the UBL 2.1
update. The 

following paragraph summarized the topic as documented in the TC
minutes:

               

    "AS: We need a clearer definition of what sort
of input we

    expect from TSC contributors.  Example: additions
to the

    Certificate of Origin (COO).

 

    TM: The ultimate TSC and PSC deliverable is a set of
2.1

    spreadsheets.  The essential input to that
process is a set of

    issues in the format we use for the issues list now
in the

    process of formation, and that has to begin with a
gap analysis

    of the differences between user requirements and the
current

    2.0 spreadsheets.  We cannot perform the gap
analysis, because

    we don't know the contributor's needs; that work has
to come

    from the contributor.  It would be great to
have a set of

    proposed revised spreadsheets from the contributor, but
at a

    minimum we have to have the issues in our format (description

    of the problem, examples of the problem, proposed
solution).

    So in the case of the COO, for example, the
contributor needs to begin by

    going through the relevant 2.0 spreadsheet (or
schema, or UML

    diagram) and identifying the information items that
need to be

    added in order to meet their requirements."

 

ACTION: TM to provide 2.1 Issues List spreadsheet for use by
contributors of 

Transport Requirements. The spreadsheet should contain any entries
already 

submitted to exemplify how issues are documented. ACTION COMPLETED, see

attached Issues List.

 

Agenda item 2.1 EFM GAP ANALYSIS

The latest material regarding the US DOT EFM Project is located at:

http://www.efm.us.com

 

In particular, see:

http://projects.battelle.org/fih/Files/FIH%20Data%20Dictionary%20v1.xls

 

http://projects.battelle.org/fih/Files/FIH_Comparison_toUBL_v1.pdf

 

 

AS led the discussion by presenting selected highlights from the
document entitled 

"Freight Information
  Highway Comparison to UBL." He pointed out
that one type 

of issue had to do with the need in UBL for additional entities. In
particular, the 

FIH is designed to allow communications with and participation by
Authorities, 

such as Customs Agencies. Further, one FIH Use Case requires a Booking
entity to 

allow shippers and their agents to book transportation. Also, a
Delivery 

Appointment entity is needed to allow supply chain partners to make
appointments 

for cargo delivery. 

 

TM acknowledged that these are the kind of items that need to be
documented in 

the Issues list.  The TSC would then have the task of evaluating
the overall set of 

needs and determining how best to address them. The TSC would then make

recommendations to the TC who has the final responsibility for what is
included in 

the UBL 2.1 release.

 

AV commented that UBL needs to enable related information elements to
be more 

closely coupled in a document. For example, within a message (or
document), how 

could one tie a "location" to a "transport event"? 

 

Agenda Item 2.2 DANISH TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS REVIEW

Where we left off:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/25237

 

 

Note: this agenda item was deferred as there was no participation from Denmark at 

this meeting..

 

Agenda Item 3 ALIGNMENT WITH UNCEFACT CCL 08B

 

Note: This agenda item was deferred due to time limitations.

 

 

Agenda Item 4 OTHER BUSINESS

 

**Freightwise

Jan Pedersen provided a summary description of the Freightwise project
being 

undertaken in Norway
under EU sponsorship. The project is focused upon 

modeling  intermodal freight transportation management (IFTM). Jan
reported that 

the modeling formulated 4 roles for intermodal freight management: 1. Transport

User, 2. Service Provider, 3.Traffic Manager, and 4.Transport Regulator.
Jan is 

eager to collaborate with other projects to achieve a common approach
to IFTM.

ACTION: Jan to distribute selected project material to TSC mailing list
once AMS 

sends him the addresses, including guests.

 

**Next Meeting?

  Likely to be in about two weeks to give participants time to:

 *review the structure of the UBL 2.1 Issues List, 

 *review issues already documented,

 *consider forumlating issues to characterize transport
requirements for UBL 2.1.

 

 

Andy Schoka

Acting Chair, OASIS UBL Transport SubCommittee

 

 

 

UBL2.0-Issues-2008-09-05-001.xls