[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: EDI Electronic Notary rather then VANS
David - Hereby we have a conundrum - 99.9 % of the people do not understand how Money or Economics work which has been around for 100 year and they hear about it every day let alone XML and Data Communications ! When it is electronic you do not know where the money is going ! A Tax being replaced by Value Added Services Costs B Electronic Notary rather than Value Added Network Service C Differences in Legal Practices D Next Steps - XML Developers using Complex Address version A TAX BEING REPLACED BY VALUE ADDED SERVICE Tax is a Feudal Term and with electronics the new name is "Value Added Service". As the banks have recognised if all transactions are electronic what is the role of the Bank - unless they can provide a Translation service like Currency Exchange ?. In EDI many of the Value Added Network Services are called CANS (Cost Added Network Services) by the Users as they add Cost rather than provide Value. Please extend your timescale to think in terms of decades for the electronic framework legislation to be put in place and people trained on the new eGovernment processes Hence although the Electronic Transaction Acts have been put in place 3 or 4 years ago in Each State, it is only now that the Local Councils are starting to provide Electronic tenders and other "Reduced Regulation" Forms on the Internet. http://www.oic.org/cpt/A/Ect/ First of all the Government has to create the Red tape and Regulations before the wonderful world of Electronics can reduce the Regulation If you are used to paying $ 20.00 for a Government Service and it is now only $ 5.00 to do it electronically what a saving ! In the meantime there is, we believe, special tax concession for projects that encourage the use of email and the Internet - hence many ISP appear to support SPAM and in Australia the electronic Pokies provide a bonanza for the State Government coffers with the tax being sent electronically every time the Pokie (slot machine) is played. In the US that may be why all the Indian Reservations have all the gambling machines Most sports programs over here on Radio and Television encourage sms and email response. B ELECTRONIC NOTARY I attended a one week EDI Conference in Brussels in 1989 where it was announced that the Plan was in 2015 there would be no reserve telephone charges (ie free telephoning). When I asked whose Plan was that everyone around me started to laugh Here is a link to the TEDIS Legal Workshop at that Conference when Francoise CHAMOUX from France put forward the concept of an Electronic Notary http://www.halisa.net/H/AEECECTL.gif This Electronic Notary fitted in with our own research in 1988 for the eCommunications in Insurance Industry between Client/Agent/ Broker/Underwriter http://www.halisa.net/R/Ins/HINRUBM3.jpg An Electronic Notary is an independent organisation that recorded that A had sent B a message (quotation/invoice/payment) and the message had been received ie in the event of a dispute the Electronic Notary can produce the evidence of who sent what to whom and when. C DIFFERENCES IN LEGAL PRACTICES Now you probably appreciate that Napoleonic Law in France has Judges as Inquisitors who have to investigate to discover the truth. Whereas in US, English and Australian Law the Judge makes a decision based on the Argument put forward by the Barristers for the Plaintiff and the Defendants which must include Precedents (previous Judgements) to support the Argument Hence the French proposed the Electronic Notary because it fitted in with their legal process whereas for the US, English it is the debate rather than the truth that is the objective of the Legal process However with the 1992 Maastritch Treaty in Europe Napoleonic Law is being replaced probable with Dispute Resolution eProcesses which use a lot of band-width ! NEXT STEPS This is why the two Address Options within the Australian Standard eCommerce Standard AS 4590 and the UN/CEFACT Standard is so important for XML Developers to understand. If the XML Developers ensure that the AS 4590 Complex Address Format is used then the VANS will not have to provide a Check and Translate Service - and every one will save money http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/AS4590/add/ What do you think ? How can we explain this to the XML Developer Community ? Regards Stephen GOULD On 19 Dec 06, at 19:30, David RR Webber (XML) wrote: Stephen, Humour me a minute here - seems that the Australian gov is charging a tax on EDI-style transactions, but not on email, html and PDF? So - what's to stop people either: 1) basing their EDI / xml servers off-shore - say in New Zealand - and using RPCs with parameters to push data - and then retrieve as either <<html> wrapped content or SQL requests via SSL. 2) using <<html> mimetype - but with CDATA section that contains the actual XML or EDI - so technically its a <<html> transaction. 3) What does the Australian government do about Amazon.com and eBay stores - like this one of mine - that is pure XML with xslt based? <underline><color><param>0000,0000,FF00</param>http://readingheaven.com/chess/</underline></color> would they want to charge tax onch page impression? If NOT - then again this kind of setup could work in reverse as a proxy to exchange XML to a B2B server behind it - off shore (see the Search feature on my page - returns pure XML). Or put another way - why are you crazy SOBs still paying this ludicrous eTax?!? DW "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.) <paraindent><param>left</param>-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ebxml-dev] Electronic Transaction Act From: "Stephen GOULD" <<stephen.gould@halisa.net> Date: Tue, December 19, 2006 10:26 am To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org Cc: "HIN"<<hinacgl1@halisa.net> Fulton -Thank you for the response - lets see if I can illuminate some of the points you made A Legislation referred to as eTax B BizDex and Local Government eCommerce Application C Port of Melbourne eCommerce application D PDF files - unnecessary overhead E Next Steps A LEGISLATION REFERRED TO AS ETAX eTax refers to legislation called the Electronic Transaction Act - passed by Australia Federal Government in 1999 and each State in 2000-2003 http://www.halisa.net/fam/gov/loc/ Australia is the only country that has passed Electronic Transaction Acts > It is not obvious how perpetuating inefficient messaging provides any > financial benefit to the Australian government. If you review some of the recent Government tenders that have been published on the OTMG Tender Information Management Service [TIMS] to make Natural resources such as water etc as Market Based Instruments http://www.oic.org/cpt/A/Ect/#e And if you can understand that Government Agencies have to place electronic Bids every 15 minutes then that becomes significant http://www.oic.org/cpt/A/Ect/#l And each Council has to develop Recreation Strategies whereby Floodlights and Irrigation Systems are required for each sports field http://www.oic.org/cpt/A/Ect/#r B BIZDEX AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT One of the tenders that has been published is for a Consortium of 32 Victorian Councils for rate-payers to apply electronically for 25 different permits and building applications - non critical applications - the EasyBiz Consortium. The contract for the eHub is with not-for profit organisation called Bizdex These are the Owners which inlcude IBM, Microsoft, Intel http://www.bizdex.com.au/page.php?file=who_owns_bizdex BizDex was developed for the Australian Wheat Board from a Government grant to assist with the export of Australian Wheat by AWB BizDex has stipulated the use of the Australian eCommerce Standard AS 4590 as part of a tender to outsource the integration into the Council applications http://www.smeems.net/z/LZIG/tdr/ICoHAWJ9/ In addition the Port of Melbourne has published a tender for an eCommerce Pilot http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/tdr/BCbAAWL7/ If there has to be an electronic check on which address format is used for every message that is a considerable Value Added Service ! E PDF FILES UNNECESSARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT OVERHEAD All the Councils provided their minutes as PDF files As an example here is is a link to McALLEN City in South Texas which warns many of the minutes are over 50Mb ! http://www.mcallen.net/officials/meetings.aspx If you want to view the minutes you have to download the PDF file and laboriously scroll through the file. Compare that with how legislation is presented as htm files and see the difference eg Federal Electronic Transaction Act http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eta1999256/ And Electronic Committee Information Management [ECIM] developed by OIC members as part of the Electronic Association Information Management [EAIM] This is ECIM implemented in a local Volunteer Sports Club so that people can track the issues though the minutes (thread) and not just have a pdf file that cannot provided the history of the issue http://www.smeems.net/fam/soc/pit/mgt/mcm/ A version has been used to keep a record of the communications on the two address data elements in UN/CEFACT http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/UNCEFACT/ NEXT STEPS Hence this may help illustrate why have a single NAD address is very important both within AS 4590 and UN/EDIFACT Your comments appreciated Regards Stephen GOULD On 15 Dec 06, at 21:23, Fulton Wilcox wrote: > Stephen, > > Two points regarding your note. > > First, I assume that your term "eTax" is a reference to the Australian eTax > electronic tax filing service. > http://ato.gov.au/individuals/sitemap.asp?type=main . > > It is not obvious how perpetuating inefficient messaging provides any > financial benefit to the Australian government. > > With respect to the Australian government relying on PDFs to distribute > tenders (request for bids), it would seem likely that it has to because PDF > is pretty much the lowest common denominator for document delivery. Although > I am not a fan of PDF, it is a workhorse. > > Second, it is probably not realistic that, as you wrote, "single XML > standards" be "...enforced by groups like the XML developers and UBL > developers." There are at least four constraints: a) it isn't clear that XML > developers actually agree on a single standard, because there are a variety > of industry and other variants, b) the larger IT community, notably those > who build and configure ERP and other applications, have powerful influence > in defining the payload data, c) the dead hand of history, which keeps > legacy practices in being, either in original form (e.g., ANSI EDI) or in > updated representations, and d) technology evolution which unsettles > previously settled standards. > > Therefore, although aspiring to "single XML standards" is worthy, the more > likely avenue to interoperability is a more pluralistic approach to > standardization, complemented by on-the-fly adaptation and translation made > feasible by system-to-system negotiation of "how do we interoperate?" using > definitional services based on standards such as ebXML. > > > Regards, > > Fulton Wilcox > Colts Neck Solutions LLC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen GOULD [mailto:stephen.gould@halisa.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 6:00 AM > To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org; xml-dev@lists.xml.org > Cc: HIN; eConsultants > Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Time to review Edifact NAD format ? > > David - Thanks for your response - I appreciate the whole point of > EDI was to provide prescribed formats and not allow flexibility. > > Which is why you have to understand the Politics behind EDI and > why it was driven in Australia by the Banking Industry Association > ref EDI/11 meetings 1987 > http://www.halisa.net/A/U/SME/ > > The Politics is extremely important because Australia is the only > Country which has passed legislation call the Electronic Transaction > Acts both at Federal and State Level as part of the "Information > Economy" > http://www.halisa.net/fam/gov/loc/ > > This mean the Government receives "eTax" for each electronic Transaction > hence the Government has a great interest in inefficient messaging > systems with confusing Standards and sending large files eg PDF > files on Government tenders > http://www.smeems.net/Q/AW/K/CPTWK4AC.htm > > Australia has been the development site for EDI since 1987 with > 18 out of the 99 UN/EDI Rapporters based in Australia > Rfe Paula SWATMAN EDI Council of Australia 1992 > http://www.halisa.net/R/EDIACPR1.htm > > And two Australian at the top of the Customs Co-operation Council > in Brussels for 5 years - one as the Secretary General and one as > the Head of Administration > http://www.halisa.net/C1/Ccc1.jpg > > There a number of other issues which is why a group of consultants > formed the OIC XML CEFACT Work Gp for two major EDI projects in > Australia that stipulate the use of UN/CEFACT and AS 4590 > - one with the Ports and one with 32 Local Councils > http://www.smeems.net/oicdata/3d1.asp > > NEXT STEPS > > We are trying to resolve these issues through UN/CEFACT > http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/UNCEFACT/ > > However we need the support from the rest of the EDI Community to > make sure that single XML standards are created and more important > enforced by groups like the XML developers and UBL developers > lists > > Regards > > Stephen GOULD > on behalf of the Management and IT Consultants > HALISA INTERNATIONAL NETWORK > > On 14 Dec 06, at 8:27, David RR Webber (XML) wrote: > > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org <FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger></paraindent>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]