Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 1|2 September 2008

[Jon Bosak <bosak@ibiblio.org>]

MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING
TUESDAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2008

ATTENDANCE

    Jon Bosak (chair)
    G. Ken Holman
    Tim McGrath (vice chair)
    Andy Schoka

MINUTES OF THE UBL TC MEETING IN MONTR�AL

    Pending.

STANDING ITEMS

    Additions to the calendar:
       http://ubl.xml.org/events

       TM: We hope that there will be some recognition of the UBL
       work at the Public-private Partnerships for e-Business
       Standards conference (18-19 September in Geneva).

    Liaison reports

       TM: Martin and Sven (BII WG2) plan to work on the mapping
       between UBL and the UN/CEFACT CC library during next week's
       BII meeting.

    Subcommittee report: PSC

       TM: Nothing this week, everyone preparing for BII meeting.

       GKH: Will be participating in the BII WG1 work session.

    Subcommittee report: TSC

       AS: A TSC meeting has been scheduled for Thursday morning at
       09:00 EDT; agenda is at

       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-tsc/200808/msg00000.html

    Review of Atlantic call minutes

       No comments.

INTERNATIONAL DATA DICTIONARY

    JB: We have just received updated spreadsheets from JPLSC.
    When we get updates from DKLSC, we'll be ready to start moving
    toward public review.

    ACTION (8/26): JB to send GKH the partial translations for
    Hungarian, Lithuanian, and Turkish.

       Done.

       GKH: These are now mounted on ubl.xml.org.

UBL WORK SCHEDULE

    ACTION (1/8): JB to revise the work schedule spreadsheet.

       Pending finalization of the BII schedule this month.

CUSTOMIZATION GUIDELINES

    A draft reformatted per the OASIS template has been sent to the
    authors.  A short work session during the call resulted in
    several minor changes.  TM will send example files to JB
    Tuesday; draft is scheduled for transmission to the TC at the
    end of the day.

    ACTION: All authors of the Guidelines to send original art to
    JB.

UBL 2.1 ISSUES LIST

    ACTION (12/18): TM to populate the new issues list with all
    currently known UBL 2.1 issues.

       Pending.

QUESTIONS ON 2.0 FROM JPLSC

    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200809/msg00000.html

    AGREED to hold a work session on these inputs in next week's
    Pacific TC call.

2008 TC MEETING SCHEDULE

    AGREED to pick this up following the UN/CEFACT Plenary 16-17
    September.

    19-23 January 2009 in Fremantle

       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200808/msg00010.html

       Expected attendance: TM, MC, GKH; possibly AS, MG, AH

    April/May 2009

       East coast North America (probably in DC area or possibly in
       Ottawa) has been suggested, but it's possible that we will
       have an opportunity to meet with UN/CEFACT at their 20-24
       April 2009 Forum in Rome.

    August 2009

       We are agreed on a preliminary plan to meet the week before
       or the week after the Balisage conference in Montr�al; this
       would be 3-7 August or 10-14 August 2009, depending on which
       is chosen for Balisage.  It's possible that we will wish to
       hold a plenary in conjunction with the UN/CEFACT Forum in
       Sapporo 28 September - 2 October, in which case the Montr�al
       meeting will be considered a working session.

TC CONCALL SCHEDULE

    Regular schedule for the next couple of months.

OTHER BUSINESS

    AS: We need a clearer definition of what sort of input we
    expect from TSC contributors.  Example: additions to the
    Certificate of Origin.

    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, 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.

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC