Note Taker	Øyvind Aassve
Participants	Ed Buchinski, Scott Hinkelman, Anthony B. Coates, Doug Hill, Nikolaus Sahling

Agenda

1. - Welcome
2. - Agree on agenda
3. - Select note taker
4. - Review Open Action Items # -
5. - Disussion on the scope. There is a need to adjust/ clarify aspects of the scope in the Project Proposal.
6. - Other business
7. - Next meeting

Meeting Results

Agree on agenda

Agreement that the agenda should focus on revisiting of scope.
Extra agenda point about possible comments/ contributions from SAP. See decisions.

Select note taker

Oyvind Aassve

Review Open Action Items # -

Disussion on the scope. There is a need to adjust/ clarify aspects of the scope in the Project Proposal.

1. Main issue reagarding the Project Proposal puropose was to take out the word "registering" the second part in the Purpose section of the Project Proposal. Proposal  - change the word registering with maintaining (maintenance model for the ucm).
   UCM should not cater to the whole lifecycle. Doug Hill from ICG comments that ICG would regard methodology for registring as part of their scope. Comment that ICG is far behind on Business Process.
   UCM is a fundamental baseline specification within the un/cefact. It is low in the stack, and should not have many dependencies to other specs. However others specs will depend on UCM.
2. CCMA interface no less important than the registry interface . This interface discussion needs also to be raised to TMG level.
3. UCM should be clear on what is core and less core about the methodology. A good solution would be to have a core spec and place what is not core in separate documents.
   Important to define the kernel of the context mechanism that can be expanded upon in later revisions/ documents.
   Possible with separate UCM-related specs for Message Assembly, Business Process, run-time aspects of UCM, list of default values of categorization lists(as asked by TBG), application of ucm to ccts.
   What is UCM 1.0 - whole set of spec or only core doc.
                            - need roadmap of these deliverables - Scott will work out some details on this.
   Oyvind asks Gunther about this use of staggered deliverables from a procedurally perspective.

Other business

Next meeting

It was decided that we take the next meeting two weeks from now, in other words that we shift the biweekly meeting with one week. Next meetint therefor June 7. Main topic will be roadmapdiscussion for the UCM deliveries that Scott hopefully has come up with a proposal for till then. The meeting after that will then focus on the new Requirements list.

Action Items

Oyvind - ask Gunther about timeframe of SAP contribution and procedures reagarding a staggered approach to a UCM set of specifications.

    Scott - develop roadmap for UCM and UCM-related documents to be developed. 

Decisions

Regarding SAPs possible comments/ contributions on requirement it was decided that SAP should come up with a timeframe for when they can be able submit these deliveries. UCM will then discuss wheter this is to be accepted.

Next Meetings