View
25
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Status of Collaboration with UN/CEFACT. Tim McGrath UBL Plenary Stockholm Sept 24 2007. UN/CEFACT/OASIS Cooperation Agreement. Paragraph 2c: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Status of Status of Collaboration Collaboration
with UN/CEFACTwith UN/CEFACT
Status of Status of Collaboration Collaboration
with UN/CEFACTwith UN/CEFACT
Tim McGrathTim McGrathUBL PlenaryUBL PlenaryStockholmStockholm
Sept 24 2007Sept 24 2007
UN/CEFACT/OASIS UN/CEFACT/OASIS Cooperation AgreementCooperation Agreement
• Paragraph 2c: "The parties will appoint representatives to jointly
develop and recommend an OASIS-UNECE-UN/CEFACT project alignment and coordination plan, addressing areas of common technical interest, including:
i) Harmonization of core data components, UBL, other business data entity libraries etc.
ii) Naming and Design Rules iii) Mechanisms for business process specification iv) Adoption and promotion efforts for the ebXML
specifications v) Identity, addressing and e-signature
functionalities with potential for interoperability across UNeDocs, Universal Postal Union practices, and other trade facilitation ID and e-signature instances.”
ebXML
UBL’s ContinuityUBL’s Continuity
XML EDI
CBL EDIFACT X12
UBL
XCBL
UN/CEFACT
The PlayersThe Players
– Any agreements are between OASIS and UN/CEFACT.– Not the UBL Technical Committee
– The UBL TC advises OASIS and UN/CEFACT as to how the collaboration is undertaken.
– The UBL TC does not “own” UBL, OASIS does.
– The UBL TC is an committee of volunteers– Like UN/CEFACT– Not like RosettaNet, OAG, Swift, etc.
Collaboration Collaboration AgreementAgreement
• UN/CEFACT recognizes UBL 2 as appropriate first-generation XML documents for eBusiness.
• Future UN/CEFACT deliverables constitute the upgrade path for UBL.
• Maintenance of UBL 2 remains with OASIS.• In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will produce
its own integrated set of XML schemas within a period of three years, OASIS will produce no further major versions of UBL past UBL 2.
• OASIS will grant UN/CEFACT a perpetual, irrevocable license to create derivative works based on UBL.
Agreed in April 2006.
1. Recognition1. Recognition“UN/CEFACT recognizes UBL 2 as appropriate
first-generation XML documents for eBusiness.”
– Until UN/CEFACT offer an alternative then UN/CEFACT agree UBL is a worthy solution.
– A question of timing…– Need solution today = use UBL– Need solution sometime in the future = await
UN/CEFACT deliverables – incorporating the UBL upgrade path
– UBL is the useable stepping stone towards a unified UN/CEFACT standard.– “Future UN/CEFACT deliverables constitute the
upgrade path for UBL” – It is in everyone’s interest to make this happen.
2. Maintenance2. Maintenanceof UBLof UBL
“In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will produce its own integrated set of XML schemas within a period of three years, OASIS will produce no further major versions of UBL past UBL 2.”
• What is meant by “major version”?• What is meant by an “integrated set of
XML Schemas”?
UBL Major VersionsUBL Major Versions
• A major version is one that breaks backward compatibility with a previous version.
• In UBL, compatibility means validation by XML schema.– If a document created with a previous version is
not valid according to the new version’s XML schema then the new version is a major release.
• For example, version 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, etc..
– If a document created with a previous version is valid according to the new version’s XML schema then the new version is a minor release.
• For example, version 2.1,2.2,2.3, etc..
UBL Minor VersionsUBL Minor Versions
“Maintenance of UBL 2 remains with OASIS”
• Maintenance covers minor version releases:– New document types.– Extensions to existing documents.– Extensions to existing ABIEs.– New Data Types.– Non-normative edits:
• Errata• Documentation enhancements
• This includes changes to Dictionary Entry Names
• The UBL TC is currently working on these for UBL 2.1– Targeted for released in 2008
3. Deliverables3. Deliverables“In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will
produce its own integrated set of XML schemas within a period of three years…”
– A set of documents that cover the Buy-Ship-Pay process supported by UBL– i.e. a legitimate alternative to UBL
– Functionally equivalent and stable– The current UN/CEFACT candidate
releases of XML schemas…– Not an integrated set.
– Cross Industry Invoice, e-Tendering documents, etc– Single process design, not integrated.
– Version synchronization– All documents must be at the same release
level.– Needs to be completed before April
2009.
4. Intellectual Property4. Intellectual Property
“OASIS will grant UN/CEFACT a perpetual, irrevocable license to create derivative works based on UBL.”
• OASIS are not transferring IPR.– UBL will continue to exist as an OASIS
Technical Specification.– The UBL Technical Committee may
continue to exist as an OASIS Technical Committee.• Maintenance and support.
This means…This means…
• If you want a solution today then use UBL.
• Adopting UBL is not contravening UN/CEFACT’s strategic direction.
• UBL is a stepping stone towards a unified UN/CEFACT standard.
• You can use UBL for today and for tomorrow.
Convergence StatusConvergence StatusConvergence StatusConvergence Status
CEFACT Plenary (Shareholders)
Bureau (Board of Directors)
Forum Management Group (Board of Management)
Permanent Groups (Corporate Divisions)
TMG (CCTS, UMM)
TBG (1-19)
ICG
ATG (1-2)
Forum
CEFACT Plenary (Shareholders)
Bureau (Board of Directors)
Forum Management Group (Board of Management)
Permanent Groups (Corporate Divisions)
Forum
OASIS Membership (Shareholders)
Board (Board of Directors)
Technical Committees(Corporate Divisions)
Organizational Organizational StructuresStructures
Joint Statement Joint Statement from Previous Forumfrom Previous Forum
• At the UN/CEFACT Forum in Dublin (26-30 March 2007), work continued to foster integration on a common set of electronic business document standards based on the input and experience of UBL. This involved constructive meetings with working groups focused on harmonization, supply chain, e-procurement, e-government and technical methodologies.
• A cross-domain project has been approved to further review public sector e-procurement requirements, providing a path for input from an envisaged workshop on "Implementation of electronic public procurement in Europe" (CEN/ISSS WS/ePPE). This will include profiles developed in the context of implementations of UBL in Northern Europe and Spain.
• We see the first candidate release of UN/CEFACT's Cross Industry Invoice schema as an opportunity to further this collaboration
Work AreasWork Areas• The major issues to be resolved in
planning for a transition of UBL to UN/CEFACT are: – Library convergence– Domain-specific work items– Schema design (NDRs)– Code Lists – Production Strategies
Library convergenceLibrary convergenceLibrary convergenceLibrary convergence
Core Component Core Component LibraryLibrary
• TBG17 interpretation has problems:– Outlined at Dublin Forum meeting.– Next slides
• If we change our submission:– They would not be UBL– What would we achieve?
• Need a reasoned debate about the technical merits of the different approaches and reach a consensus. – Schedule meeting this week
Core Component Core Component LibraryLibrary
• TBG17 – Harmonization.• UBL and UN/CEFACT are attempting to
converge our two efforts into a "best of breed" solution. – Converge the UBL library with the CEFACT
library.• UBL has defined requirements for the
CEFACT library to support the Business Information Entities of UBL.– Submitted in April.
• Reached an impasse:– “technical errors”.– differences in interpretation of CCTS.
Design DifferencesDesign Differences
Party. Details
Charge. Indicator
Tax. Jurisdiction. Text
Geographical Coordinate. Latitude. Measure and Geographical Coordinate. Longitude. Measure
Identification. Identifier
Property term used for role.
Used for number of different BBIEs and also occurrences of each BBIE.
Allows repeating occurrences of certain types of BCC
Always used
TBG17
Extensions are new ACCs (that include intension ACC)
Generalize CCs where their structure and value domain are the same
Keep it simple
Suggestion
Adds role or context to propertyQualifiers for Association
Normalized (except translations of text)Cardinality of BCCs
BBIEs may be the same or restrict occurrences
How this affects BBIEs
Not usedQualifiers for ABIEs
Indicator. Indicator “
Customer Party. DetailsMore context in UBL
Tax Scheme. Address“
Location Coordinate. Degrees. MeasureContext Levels for CCs
Less context in UBL
Identifier. IdentifierSpecial Property Terms
UBL
CCTS DifferencesCCTS Differences
Country. Name. TextCountry. NameSecondary Representation TermsName is a legitimate representation term
Object Class + Property Term + Representation Term (or associated Object Class) gives meaning
Object Class + Property Term gives meaningRepresentation term (or associated Object Class) only defines the presentation (what it looks like)
Currency. CodeCurrency Code. CodeTruncation of Property TermsProperty Term is not the same as the third part of the name.
TBG17UBL
Domain-specific Domain-specific work itemswork items
Domain-specific Domain-specific work itemswork items
Supply Chain DocumentsSupply Chain Documents• “International Supply Chains consist of
integrated and coordinated flows of information, goods & payments”
• Source: UN/CEFACT International Supply Chain Reference Model
• TBG14 – Business Process Modelling– Incorporate UBL process models as part of
International Supply Chain Reference Model.– Opportunity for accepting products not
developed using UMM
eBGT InitiativeeBGT Initiative• electronic Business, Government and
Trade– A new support team for the FMG
• Bring together end-to-end global core of interoperable standards for buy-ship-pay model in support of e-business, e-government and e-trade– stage one (three months): Stockholm (this week)
• launch projects on core deliverables and tools– stage two (six months): focus on priority developments – stage three (three months): triage review of progress– stage four (three months): focus on demos / case studies – stage five (three months): evaluate / formulate next steps
Government, Business Government, Business & Trade?& Trade?
UBL for GovernmentUBL for Government
• OIOUBL – subset based on UBL (buy, ship, pay)
• NES – subset based on UBL (incorporating OIOUBL) (buy, ship,
pay)• CODICE
– extension of UBL (EU e-tendering)• CEN/ISSS WS/BII
– UBL candidate core components for UN/CCL– NES and CODICE documents based on candidate core
components – Interoperable with OIOUBL/NES and CODICE
• UN schemas for Government e-procurement (eBGT)– UBL core components incorporated into UN/CCL– customizations of CEN/ISSS documents based on UN/CCL
GovernmentGovernment
• TBG19– "Further review on current procurement
requirements for e-Government" project.– Involves TBG6, TBG1, NES and CODICE.– CEN/ISSS workshop (WS/BII) kicked off
May 11th.
• Strategic opportunity and a proving ground for CEFACT collaboration.– Potential eBGT deliverable.
OIOUBLNES
CODICECEN/ISSS
Government AdoptionGovernment Adoption
UBL for BusinessUBL for Business• TBG1 - Supply Chain
– Cross Industy Invoice schema at release candidate stage.• Expect approval in Stockholm
– Convergence for new set of BRSs covering sourcing to payment incorporated requirements from UBL (for 2008)
– Agreed to revisit the approved BRSs (Invoice and Remittance Advice) for UBL input.
UBL for BusinessUBL for Business
• TBG6 – Construction– 21 schemas for tendering– Not suitable for EU requirements– CODICE is the UBL based alternative
UBL for TradeUBL for Trade• TBG3 – International Trade
– Joint TBG2 submission to TBG17 – Approved IFTM BRS ?– Starting document modeling
• all to be based on IFTM BRS• UBL to collaborate on Status document.
• TBG2 – Digital paper– BRS for UN/eDocs approved
• Duplicates much of the work of UBL
– UN/Layout Key project • needs cooperation with TC154 for UN/TDED
Schema design Schema design (NDRs)(NDRs)
Schema design Schema design (NDRs)(NDRs)
Naming and Design Naming and Design RulesRules
• ATG2– Developing NDR 3.0 – Dependent on CCTS 3.0
• UBL completed UN/CEFACT/UBL XML Naming and Design Rules Analysis– Submitted to ATG2 on 9th August– 200 rules and UBL Disposition– http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200708/msg00034.html
Local vs GlobalLocal vs Global•UBL Statement:
•UBL NDR now appreciates the business requirements for the hybrid approach, and we will support its incorporation into the next version of CEFACT NDRs as soon as CEFACT formally adopts it and there is support for it in a released version of CCTS.
•ATG2 response:•It is already in the NDRs and supported in CCTS 2.01.
““Accepting” ATG2 NDRsAccepting” ATG2 NDRs• Means we are comfortable with UN/CEFACT
adopting the item in question– We don't disagree with it
But • This represents no commitment on the part of
the UBL TC– because at this stage we have no intention of
producing further revisions of the UBL 2 NDR.
CustomizationCustomization• ATG2
– Use of xsd:any– ATG2 members all use some type of
'extension' point at the root level • Like UBLExtension
• TMG Context Methodology– Work-in-progress
Code Lists Code Lists Code Lists Code Lists
Code ListsCode Lists
• Information Content Group (ICG)– Maintain CEFACT code lists – Project for UN code list formalization
• identified task to "gain understanding of genericode"
• ATG2 proposed rule [R33]– “Reusable Code List schema modules MUST be created
to convey code list enumerations.” • TBG17
– “What we need is a clear convention how to use ISO 3166 in CCTS uDT and qDT.”
• UBL code list approach is based on OASIS Code List Representation TC– TC currently being incorporated.– Uses genericode format for values.– Separates representation from verification.
Development StrategiesDevelopment StrategiesDevelopment StrategiesDevelopment Strategies
TBG17 Harmonization
TBG6
TBG1 Creates BRS TBG1 Creates RSM BRS+RSM Sent to TBG17
BRS+RSM Sent to TBG17
BRS+RSM Sent to TBG17
Library
ATG2 Generates Schema
TBG3
Ve
rified
by IC
G
Library
Other submiss
ion to TBG17
SchemasNext step
Procurement SC
Transport SC
UBL NDRsCustomization
Usage
The CEFACT ProcessThe CEFACT Process
UBL Library
Deliverables (revisited)Deliverables (revisited)
• A set of documents that cover the Buy-Ship-Pay process supported by UBL– A legitimate alternative to UBL
• The current UN/CEFACT candidate releases of XML schemas…– Cross Industry Invoice, e-Tendering documents, etc– Not an integrated set.– Single process design, not co-ordinated.
• Also means version synchronization– All documents at the same release level.
• Needs to be completed before April 2009.
Different StrategiesDifferent Strategies
Parallel development
Near-serial development
UBL CEFACT
Order
Invoice
Catalogue
Despatch Advice
Despatch adv.Despatch adv.Despatch adv.Receipt Advice
Waybill
Invoice
Order
Tendering
Goals for this weekGoals for this week• TBG1
– Martin, Peter
• TBG3– Andy,Tim
• TBG19– Adam
• TBG17– Tim, Andy, Martin, Tommy, Kim
• ATG2– Mavis, Mike
• ICG/TMG– Ken?
Recommended