Re: UN/CEFACT response to UBL

["Ray Walker" <raywalker@attglobal.net>]

Dear Jon,
Thank you for your rapid and considered response to our email  of yesterday.
Arising from your comments we would like to make the following observations:

1. With regard to the issue of  “the preferred” versus “a preferred”
document -centric approach we share your perspective.  There will only be
one XML document-centric solution and UN/CEFACT will not support multiple
XML document-centric approaches.   On reflection, the wording in our email
of yesterday was misleading. By way of explanation, the rationale for our
statement regarding “the preferred” position arose from the fact that we
have received input from many other organizations.  As an open,
international, organization we need to take that input into account.
However, our intention has always been that UBL will be the foundation for
our document-centric approach.

Therefore, to clarify our position we are now proposing the following text
for your consideration:

“UBL will be the foundation for the UN/CEFACT XML document-centric approach.
In addition, subject to your agreement, the brand UBL will be formally
recognized in the official UN/CEFACT naming of this product.”

The extension in the UBL timeline concerns us. Is there anything that we can
do together, between now and Seoul, to mitigate the impact of this delay?
You are well aware that the global user community is anxiously awaiting the
conclusion of our deliberations, and the incorporation of UBL into UN/CEFACT
during the Seoul Forum in September 2003.

I look forward to your response.


Yours,
Ray.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ray Walker, Chairman UN/CEFACT Steering Group
<raywalker@attglobal.net>  WWW.uncefact.org
Mobile: +44 78666 86185; London: Voice: + 44 208 297 1836 Fax: + 44 208  297
9392
Brussels: Voice & Fax: + 32 2 660 2039
----- Original Message -----
From: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
To: <ubl-cefact@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: <raywalker@attglobal.net>; <rberwanger@btrade.com>;
<diskray@w150.aone.net.au>; <mcrawford@lmi.org>; <karl.best@oasis-open.org>;
<agregory@aeon-llc.com>; <stk@finansraadet.dk>; <gunther.stuhec@sap.com>;
<lseaburg@aeon-llc.com>; <sue.probert@commerceone.com>; <jbc@lawyer.com>;
<gunther.stuhec@t-online.de>; <klaus@naujok.name>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: UN/CEFACT response to UBL


> Hello UN/CEFACT UBL Discussion Team,
>
> The team appointed by the UBL TC to negotiate the proposed
> transition of UBL from OASIS to CEFACT met Thursday morning to
> prepare for discussion of this matter at our upcoming UBL TC
> meeting in Montreal.  As chance would have it, the timing of this
> meeting allowed us to very briefly consider and discuss the mail
> received from Margaret Pemberton via Klaus-Dieter Naujok a few
> hours before the call.  Thus I have been authorized to transmit
> this response in time (we hope) for your consideration this week.
>
> Discussion centered around this passage from Margaret's message,
> which is copied in full below:
>
>    UN/CEFACT is looking forward to finalize this effort and would
>    like to meet the timing as specified in paragraph #1 of the
>    proposal below.  Therefore, could OASIS/UBL confirm that they
>    are also able to meet the target date (15 September 2003)
>
> We regret to state that several factors will prevent us from
> meeting the targets we were forecasting 26 November 2002 when we
> first made this proposal.  Chief among these factors are the
> following:
>
>  - At the April/May TC meeting in London, we inserted an
>    additional review cycle (0.8) this summer for the purpose of
>    gaining focused input from RosettaNet, OAG, and eGov
>    procurement experts.  This cycle has added approximately three
>    months to our original estimates.  Our revised timeline now
>    schedules release of UBL 1.0 from the TC into the OASIS
>    standardization process in mid-October 2003.
>
>  - It is increasingly likely that we will find it useful to
>    schedule another additional review period (call it 0.9) to test
>    certain design assumptions in real-world implementations before
>    finalizing 1.0.  This has not yet been brought before the UBL
>    TC for discussion (we will be talking about this at our meeting
>    in Montreal beginning 28 July), but it is a real possibility.
>    Given the fixed timing of the OASIS standardization process, it
>    appears that the UN/CEFACT Forum meeting in March 2004 is a
>    more realistic target for the transition of UBL to CEFACT.
>
>  - Work scheduling aside, the delay of the CEFACT team in
>    responding to our proposal of April 2003 makes it impossible
>    for us and the UBL TC to consider the changes in wording you
>    have just proposed in time for any immediate action.
>
>  - The change just suggested for paragraph 5 of our April proposal
>    is especially problematic.  Our proposed language was:
>
>       5. UBL shall be formally recognized as UN/CEFACT's preferred
> document-centric XML syntax for business-to-business
> electronic commerce.
>
>    Your proposed revision would read:
>
>       5. UBL shall be formally recognized as a UN/CEFACT preferred
> document-centric XML syntax for business-to-business
> electronic commerce.
>
>    This change clearly anticipates the existence of multiple
>    "UN/CEFACT preferred document-centric XML syntaxes."  This
>    seems to misunderstand the whole point of the UBL effort, which
>    is to define a single international standard document-centric
>    XML B2B syntax.  As we have stated before, we accept the very
>    useful distinction between document-centric and process-centric
>    XML B2B syntaxes.  But we fail to see any advantage in the
>    definition of more than one such syntax as the basis for XML
>    business documents.  Furthermore, it seems to us that the
>    existence of multiple document-based syntaxes will make the
>    future task of integrating the document-centric and
>    process-centric approaches virtually impossible.
>
>    At the very least, we need time to consider the ramifications
>    of the changes you have just proposed and to prepare
>    counter-proposals of our own.
>
>  - Finally, reports of statements made by key ATG members at the
>    recent meeting in Walldorf regarding the placement and function
>    of UBL in ATG need to be discussed and understood by the
>    negotiation team and the UBL TC before we can continue progress
>    in the direction of a transition of the work to ATG.  We have
>    scheduled talks in Montreal for this purpose.
>
> Taking all of these factors into consideration, we believe that a
> reasonable timeline (assuming that we can resolve the remaining
> issues, and taking into account the OASIS standardization process)
> would have everything in place for a transition of the UBL
> committees into ATG by the March UN/CEFACT Forum meeting in
> Barcelona following a co-located UBL/ATG meeting in Wollongong in
> January.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jon Bosak
> Chair, OASIS UBL TC
>
> ==================================================================
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:48:09 +0200
> Subject: Re: [ubl-cefact] UN/CEFACT response  to UBL
> Cc: raywalker@attglobal.net, rberwanger@bTrade.com,
diskray@w150.aone.net.au,
>         mcrawford@lmi.org, karl.best@oasis-open.org,
agregory@aeon-llc.com,
>         stk@finansraadet.dk, gunther.stuhec@sap.com,
lseaburg@aeon-llc.com,
>         Sue.Probert@commerceone.com, jbc@lawyer.com
> To: jon.bosak@sun.com
> From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok <klaus@naujok.name>
>
> Jon,
>
> The message below was sent almost an hour ago to the list. However,
> none of us got a copy back. Therefore, I am sending this out to the
> list members suing their individual email addresses.
>
> Regards,
>
> Klaus
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> All,
>
> In preparation for the OASIS/UBL discussion today, we are forwarding
> you the updated proposal for confirmation, It is our understanding that
> this version more clearly articulates the agreements that were reached
> during the discussions between Jon Bosak, Mark Crawford and Ray Walker
> in London.   UN/CEFACT is happy and anxious to finalize this agreement
> so that we can jointly publicize the consolidation of our activities.
> It is critical that we move expeditiously, as the UN/CEFACT meeting in
> Seoul  is rapidly approaching.  UN/CEFACT is  looking forward to
> finalize this effort  and would like to meet the timing as specified in
> paragraph #1 of the proposal below.  Therefore, could OASIS/UBL confirm
> that they are also able to meet the  target date (15 September 2003)
> Best Regards,
>
> Margaret Pemberton
> UNCEFACT/ ATG Chair; on behalf of the UN/CEFACT UBL Discussion Team
>
> Revised Plan for Transfer of UBL to UN/CEFACT
>
> 13 March 2003; minor revision 17 May 2003
>
> <new>Minor revision's 17 July to Paragraph 4 & 5:</new>
>
> 1. The development of UBL Naming and Design Rules and UBL Library
>     Content shall continue in the current OASIS organizational
>     structure until completion and OASIS standardization of Version
>     1.0 of the following items of work: the UBL Naming and Design
>     Rules, the UBL component library, and an initial set of UBL
>     document schemas.  Completion of these work items is expected
>     in 2Q2003 and OASIS standardization is expected in 3Q2003.  It
>     shall be the plan of the the OASIS UBL TC to complete these
>     items in time to become ATG items of work at the meeting of the
>     UN/CEFACT Forum in September 2003.
>
> 2. The UBL TC shall recommend to OASIS the creation of one or more
>     short-term mailing lists for the direct input of comments from
>     members of UN/CEFACT into the work of the UBL 1.0
>     specification.  Interested UN/CEFACT members shall be invited
>     to participate informally in UBL TC and technical subcommittee
>     meetings.  Input from UN/CEFACT members shall be given
>     consideration to the fullest extent possible within the limits
>     of UBL's current schedule, scope, and business requirements.
>
> 3. Upon completion of the initial set of deliverables and their
>     publication as OASIS standards, OASIS shall grant UN/CEFACT an
>     unlimited, perpetual, royalty-free license to continue
>     development of the standards and to publish works derived from
>     those standards as UN/CEFACT specifications.
>
> 4. Ownership of the UBL name and logo as applied to version 1.0
>     shall remain with OASIS; ownership of the UBL name and logo as
>     applied to later versions of the work shall vest in UN/CEFACT.
>     OASIS shall continue to distribute UBL 1.0 without charge to
>     users but shall discontinue further development of the
>     standard.  UN/CEFACT shall publish future versions of UBL
>     without charge to users.  If UN/CEFACT fails to <new> progress
>     work on progress work on UBL activities</new> <delete> publish a
>     version of UBL</delete> as a UN-sanctioned standard within one year
> of
>     the date on which this agreement takes effect, or if UN/CEFACT
>     at any future time transfers development of UBL to some third
>     party or terminates its continuing development and maintenance
>     of UBL as a freely available standard, then OASIS shall have
>     the right to resume further development of UBL using the UBL
>     name and logo.
>
> 5. UBL shall be formally recognized as <new>a </new> UN/CEFACT
>     <delete>'s</delete> preferred
>     document-centric XML syntax for business-to-business electronic
>     commerce.
>
> 6. The OASIS UBL subcommittees shall transfer to UN/CEFACT as UBL
>     subcommittees of ATG chartered to continue development of
>     UN/CEFACT's document-centric XML syntax for
>     business-to-business electronic commerce.
>
> 7. This plan shall become effective when approved by UN/CEFACT,
>     OASIS, and the OASIS UBL Technical Committee.
>
> --
> Klaus-Dieter Naujok                         UN/CEFACT/TMG Chair
> Global e-Business Advisory Council            Principal Advisor
> Business Web Site                                www.ge-bac.com
> Personal Web Site                         www.klaus.naujok.name
> TMG Web Site          http://webster.disa.org/cefact-groups/tmg