Re: [ubl-dev] Re: [ebxml-dev] Invoice message: UN/EDIFACT and UBL

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Jon,

If I were to attempt to reverse engineer something - the
original xCBL work was based heavily on SimplEDI - that
is the most commonly used elements of the most commonly
used EDIFACT message formats (invoice / PO / ship notice).

You can find documentation on EDIFACT SimplEDI.  It's
value is that is saves a lot of time mapping to the EDIFACT
transactions as it provides a minimal set.

Linking UBL transactions to those SimplEDI elements would
probably not be too ardious - and certainly helpful for people
needing to co-exist between existing EDIFACT transactions
and UBL.

DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
To: <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>; <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:52 PM
Subject: [ubl-dev] Re: [ebxml-dev] Invoice message: UN/EDIFACT and UBL


> [aron@ik.bme.hu:]
>
> | This is written on the homepage of UBL v1.0:
> | "The initial UBL library of data components was based upon the xCBL 3.0
> | schema library, which was itself based on the UN/EDIFACT and ANSI X12
EDI
> | component libraries."
> | (source: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cd-UBL-1.0/)
> |
> | If UBL messages (e.g. Invoice) are based on UN/EDIFACT standard
> | (e.g. INVOIC message) then I suspect that there must exist a
> | mapping (EDIFACT-to-UBL and UBL-to-EDIFACT). Is this mapping
> | accessible somewhere? Or shall I ask xCBL experts?
>
> I'm open to correction from people who worked closely with CBL,
> but I believe that "based on" was used pretty loosely in the
> passage you quote above.  It's my understanding that there is
> (somewhere) a formal mapping of xCBL 3.0 to EDI standards, but UBL
> has evolved so far beyond its roots in xCBL that I doubt whether
> such a mapping would be very useful.  The point is that UBL
> inherits the relevant semantics of traditional EDI message
> standards, not that there is a formal mapping to those standards.
>
> UBL's grounding in the ISO 15000-5 Core Components Technical
> Specification together with the harmonization work currently
> underway in UN/CEFACT will eventually provide a semantic basis
> that should (in theory) enable us to generate the kind of mapping
> you're looking for.
>
> Jon
>
>
>