Proposal for a Revised Technical Framework for UN/CEFACT 1

Proposal for aRevised

Technical Framework for UN/CEFACT

1

REVISED TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL

Requirements

2

3

The current market• Surveys, analysis and experience suggests:– Many established communities not using UN/CEFACT

standards consistently– Situation is too fragmented to change

• Then and now…– UN/EDIFACT = single SDO (UN/CEFACT)– XML = many SDOs (W3C, OASIS, ISO, IEC, GS1)

• UN/CEFACT is not the sole arbiter of XML standards for eBusiness– No ‘one’ canonical standard will work

What Standard(s) Can We Achieve?• One Standard to Rule them All– Centralized– Global agreement– Is my invoice everyone’s invoice?

Or• Islands of standardization– Foundational semantics – Satisfying different communities of use– Using specific EDI or XML formats– Transform between different formats– Needs coordination

• Fragmented Standards– Who wins?

• Coordinated Standards– Common semantics– Federated approach

The Options Before Us

• One Standard– Who decides?– What do they decide?– When do they decide?

6

The opportunity for UN/CEFACT• Someone needs to facilitate the interoperability

between these communities.• UN/CEFACT can have that role– Standardize what can be agreed, to improve

interoperability– ‘core’ processes, structures, components and data

types (including code lists).– Allow communities to re-use these in their

environments.

7

The role for UN/CEFACT• A forum for coordinating a framework for

interoperability for trade facilitation and eBusiness– Ensure everything is done, but …– Not to do everything

• Facilitators not owners• Support disparate community implementations• Build bridges not walls

How do we do this?

Restructure what we have

• Agree on what the ‘end game’ should be:– What an effective framework for UN/CEFACT

deliverables would look like.• Plan how to reach the ‘end game’– Who does what– Stop doing things that don’t fit this plan

• Manage the completion of these projects– Get the right resources

• Manage expectations– Communicate value

REVISED TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL

Interoperability

9

summary• (proposed) Revised Technical Framework:

• Standardize on semantics not syntax or formats• UN/CEFACT ‘core’ semantics establish foundation for interoperability• Communities of use create their own implementations

• Process, components, structures, documents and syntax• Statement of conformance• Registry of conformant specifications published by UN/CEFACT

• UN/CEFACT is a facilitator of interoperability between communities

• Impact on programme of work:• UN/CEFACT projects will develop…

• Profiles for business processes• Business requirements, rules and semantics

• Published as Deliverables for Information• Recommendation for use of standards

• Communities of use develop …• Implementation profiles

• business requirements, rules and semantics and syntax 10

Framework for Interoperability

• For us its all about information exchange• The ability of two or more systems or

components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged

• Requires mutual agreement on several levels

Legal Interoperability

Legislative Alignment

Organizational Interoperability

Organization/Process Alignment

Semantic Interoperability

Semantic Alignment

Technical Interoperability

Interaction & Transport

Political Context

Interoperability levels






Semantic Alignment



Political Context

Requirements forInteroperability

International Laws

WTO/UN recommendations

agreed business processes

agreed components

agreed documents

agreed syntax

Trade Agreements

Requirements for Trade Facilitation

agreed messaging protocol

Trade FacilitationRecommendations

Facilitating Interoperability in Trade

EDIFACT and XML expressionsOf the models






Semantic Alignment



Political Context

Requirements forInteroperability

International Laws


‘core’ business processes

‘core’ components

‘core’ structures

Trade Agreements


messaging protocols


The role for UN/CEFACT

UNECE Recommendations

Generic reference models for business processesGeneric semantic data models

Generic semantic data structure models

EDIFACT and XML

Interoperability Framework

UN/CEFACT Publications






Semantic Alignment



Political Context

International Laws





EDIFACT and XML expressions

Trade Agreements

messaging protocols



[ODP] UN/CEFACT deliverables for informationDeliverables that support how one or more Business Standards and/or Recommendations shall be implemented

1. Union of all usages(A,B,C,D,E,F,G)

2. Designed set(A,C,F,Z)

communitycommunity

community

AB C

D

EF

G

A

CZ

F

Everything everyone wants:X complex to understandX complex to maintain

(harmonize) enables compliance of

legacy/current solutionsX compliance does not ensure

interoperability

What we think everyone needs:X creates yet another standardX challenges compliance of

legacy/current solutions compliance ensures interoperability

commuity

Defining the ‘core’

3. Intersection of all usages(F)

F

4. Intersection of common usage(B,C,F,G)

B

CF

G

What everyone uses: simple to understand easier to maintain encourages compliance of

legacy/current solutions• compliance ensures

(limited) interoperability

What many use: still simple to understand• harder to maintain (harmonize) enables compliance to subsets by

legacy/current solutionsX compliance does not ensure

interoperability

can evolve towards

Defining the ‘core’

International Laws





Trade Agreements

messaging protocols



Core Interoperable Foundation Library

Based on standard

repository schema

syntax expressions of models

EDIFACTXML

Published in

18

The Core Interoperable Foundation Library

communities of use…• Trading environments around specific:

– business domains,– industry groups, – governments,– regions, – technologies or – commercial service models

• Communities contain smaller communities• No organization exists in only one community

– members overlap– communities form webs not hierarchies

• They are identified by context– requirements defined by business rules

• May support disparate implementations by members 19

communities specify their ownimplementation guides

• Business processes– Establish context of use

• Document requirements– Invoice, Freight Invoice, Utility Invoice, Bill, etc, etc.– Process determines function NOT name of document

• Business rules (incl. code lists)– “In cases when invoices are issued in other currencies than the national currency of the

seller, the seller may be required to provide information about the VAT total amount in his national currency.”

• Syntax – EDIFACT, X12, ASN.1, XML

• Formats– XML vocabularies (UBL, GS1, OAGi, XBRL, ISO20022)

20

Used in

Used in

Used in

Used in

‘core’ ‘community of use’

business processes

components and code lists

structures

syntax expressions

creating a ‘core’ semantic referencefor eBusiness

21

Communities define ‘common’

‘common’ to the insurance community

(B,F,G)

‘common’ to the CBRA community

(F,G,C)

‘common’ to the procurement community

(B,F,C)

Insurancecommunity

Insurancecommunity

Insurancecommunity

AB

F

G

Customscommunity

CBRAcommunity

Single windowcommunity

C

EF

G

Procurementcommunity



B C

D

F

Governance Communities Implementations

Agriculture Domain

UN/CEFACT

communities may have different implementations

Cross BorderAgriculture domain

Core Interoperable Foundation Library

Conformanceto core semantics

Conformanceto community semantics

23

http://mylink.agdaff.gov.au/Comms/PrintPub/Logos/Business%20Area%20Logos/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=12&RootFolder=/Comms/PrintPub/Logos/Business%20Area%20Logos/AQIS

assurances of conformity

• Sample:– “This specification is in conformity to the UN/CEFACT

Core Interoperable Foundation Library in that it uses the following generic components…

– All new components introduced in this specification are defined in reference to these generic components and are consistent with them.”

• Communities issue statements of self conformance– no certification

• It is assumed that the industry will police itself and that most communities will determine that it is in their own best interests to make truthful and accurate claims.

24

registry of community specifications

IVI Consortium

IMS Global Learning Consortium

European Commission Joinup Registry

Community Specifications

25

ISO 20022 Registry

26

Towards Sustainable Collaboration Contributing to Global Trade

International Supply Chain Reference Model

Services supporting Global Supply Chain Communities

SUPPLIER BUYER

PROCUREMENT

FINANCIAL

REGULATORY

LOGISTICS

Malaysian Single

Window

Korean Single

Window

INTTRAGTNexus

ARIBAGS/1

STANDARD CHARTERED

HSBC

Information sharing based on foundation of UN/CEFACT semantics

Documents

Proposal for a Revised Technical Framework for UN/CEFACT 1