RE: [ubl-dev] Time to review Edifact NAD format ?

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

Stephen,   

Have you looked at creating a profile for NAD using OASIS CIQ?  
Remember the whole point of EDI was to perscribe - not allow
flexibility!!! Even the UPU acknowledges that accelerating
computerization and modern mail volumes has resulted in reduced options
and dependency on uni-formats.  E.g. I used to be able to address
something to - 'Third house on the left, pass the Lamb and Flag, with
the pink shutters and red front door, Henlade, Somerset, England'.  
Now that comes back as 'No Post Code - address unknown' ; -)

I did forward your original message to Ram Kumar - he is in Sydney - and
I'm sure would be happy to assist further.   

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ubl-dev] Time to review Edifact NAD format ?
From: "Stephen GOULD" <stephen.gould@halisa.net>
Date: Thu, December 14, 2006 6:51 pm
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org

EDI is proving to be a disaster around the world mainly because the
Standards were formulated over 20 years ago with the driving force being
to reduce Purchasing costs not facilitate Trade 

EDIFACT was first release in 1987 and the format has not been 
revised hence the normal business problem of unclear instruction
results in mayhem.

There are two address formats in the NAD Data Segment without 
any directions to stipulate when each format should be used

With the advent of XML and the Internet perhaps it is time to have very 
clear instructions when to use each format or just reduce it to one 
format only

A TECHNICAL PROBLEM WITH MULTIPLE ADDRESS FORMATS

The OIC Expert IT eCommittee formed to resolve the single XML address
for ASA 4590 has initially confirmed that the Complex version can
replace
the Simplex version to establish a single XML Address format

It now appears that UN/CEFACT (EDIFACT) has the same problem with 
different options in the Name and Address (NAD) Data Segment for each
Trade Document 

Whilst I appreciate you will not have reviewed the details of the data 
elements and data components of UN/CEFACT, here is a link to the 
"NAD" Data Segments and three eTrade documents downloaded from the 
Australia TradeGate Importer/Exporter Web Site
http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/UNCEFACT/ZXAAECR1.htm

As you can see there will be much confusion as to whether software 
developers should use Data Element CO58 or CO80 and CO59.

However the main problem is that software will have to be written
to check which whether "CO58 has been used" or whether "CO80 has 
been used thru to 3207"
http://www.halisa.net/R/EDIFACT/edieraa1.htm

B PORT OF MELBOURNE EOI 13110

The Government Responses to Questions to the Port of Melbourne 
eCommunity PoMC EOI 13110 indicates there is much confusion from 
Government responses on the use of Ecommerce Standards
http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/tdr/BCbAAWL7/BCbAAWQ1.htm#Ah

It is appropriate UN/CEFACT to clarify the issues prior to the RFT being

published as EOI 13110 states all importers and exporters must use 
EDIFACT.

C UN/CEFACT SUPPORT FOR TRADE FACILITATION

The Mission Statement of UN/CEFACT states it "supports activities 
dedicated to improving the ability of business, trade and administrative

organizations, from developed, developing and transitional economies, 
to exchange products and relevant services effectively"
http://www.oic.org/z/FZIG/AUJS/p/C/1UCAAEB1.htm

In Sep 2004 you and I reviewed your draft eCommerce Trade Strategy
for the Asia Pacific Region
http://www.oic.org/A/U/

On reviewing that Strategy again, I believe the key issue for Trade
Facilitation is the single address format within the "NAD" Data Segment 
for all eTrade Documents.

Hence I believe the recommendations on the AS 4590 Standard will be
pertinent to UN/CEFACT.

NEXT STEPS

What do you think ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org