RE: [ubl-dev] RE: [LIKELY JUNK]Re: [ubl-dev] UBL vs UN/CEFACT

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

Danny,


Actually TDF is not just about being first.  They give points and kudos
for all kinds of things - top 20, youngest, best climber, sprinter, time
trials - and then just for being there - if you are the crazy going off
on your own while everyone else is in the peloton - the cameras will
follow you for the whole race sometimes!

; -)

Thanks, DW


   -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] RE: [LIKELY JUNK]Re: [ubl-dev] UBL vs UN/CEFACT
 From: Danny Gaethofs <dgaethofs@yahoo.com>
 Date: Wed, July 22, 2009 2:19 pm
 To: stephengreenubl@gmail.com, "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>
 Cc: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
 
 All,

It is not about who gets the credits of being first. It is not the Tour
the France we are talking about. It is about solution standards that
will enable electronic business in the world and especially in Europe,
thus not only electronic invoicing. 

From what I can see now UBL is most adopted from the Scandinavian
Countries to the USA USDOT  EFM initiatives.. And as we all know once
implemented people will not switch every day. 

With several years of experience in implementing .ERP systems in their
full extent I have learned one lesson companies have their own
opionions/strategies and being humble ultimately pays. Developing a
standard from an Ivory tower does not stimulate adoption unless you are
able to force the world, but then there are only a few companies able to
do so..

Let us not forget RosettaNet and OAG which have a close relationship
with companies operating in Global Supply Chains and the OAG BOD's are
very interesting.

kind regards
Danny Gaethofs


From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
To: "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>
Cc: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:56:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] RE: [LIKELY JUNK]Re: [ubl-dev] UBL vs UN/CEFACT

 Thanks for these answers. I'm especially interested to hear your
comparison between UNECE CEFACT and OASIS UBL TC. Yes
Oracle and SAP might seem to favour CEFACT over UBL but they
don't seem to give either a lot of profile: and I would have thought
 GS1 is more their scene (but I've no knowledge of this so I'll leave
that to those of you who know). Interesting that you mention 
government agencies - is that US ones? Obviously we all know the
high profile UBL and OASIS get in EU Gov.
 
On your last point, Mark, I guess it doesn't matter if UNECE and
ISO, etc put themselves as de jure if they don't actually provide
at present any actually usable procurement ebusiness XML 
message standards so I would think it still remains for outside
 bodies like governments to decide which standards to recommend.
In the UK it is BASDA's and UBL (old recommendations but I'm 
not aware of anything to supercede the so-called e-GIF yet). In
some EU countries it seems to be UBL. Others may be more
 concerned with legacy EDI and maybe don't see XML standards
as yet appropriate to recommend for eprocurement. I don't know
if any recommend anything (existing - not just 'in progress' like
CEFACT's procurement support except CII) for procurement using
 XML other than those we've heard mentioned.
---
Stephen D Green

 

2009/7/22 Crawford, Mark <mark.crawford@sap.com>
   > I guess that's aimed at me.  
 

Not at all.  It is for all on the thread.  
    
 
UN/CEFACT in 1999 started ebXML in part to determine how to move EDIFACT
forward into XML.  UBL did not come along until two years later, and
only as an outgrowth of the lack of any actual content work being
conducted in ebXML.  Initial discussions in having UBL in the EWG were
not successful as much for political reasons on both sides as anything
else and that is why it was started in OASIS.  The majority of the
content in UBL was developed by UN/CEFACT personnel who fully expected
UBL to be subsumed by UN/CEFACT at some point as promised in the initial
UBL meetings and its formal documentation. The technical solutions were
contributed to, and at times led by, UN/CEFACT personnel.  

 

 > It was back then mainly
Mike Adcock, Sue Probert, Tim McGrath and few others contributing
content, beside the initial xCBL
starting point (though I missed the first year or so).  

 
Mike Adcock - UN/CEFACT
Sue Probert - UN/CEFACT
Stig K - UN/CEFACT
James Whittle - UN/CEFACT
and so on  
  
 
In UBL's defense, the divergence by UBL from CCTS is as much a function
of timing in the delivery of the specifications as anything else -
although both UBL and UN/CEFACT would have been better served if UBL had
developed Core Components rather than just BIEs as that part of the spec
was fairly mature at the time UBL started.  

 
Why is that? (asking for curiosity since it's academic now after all
this time) 
 

Actually, it is not academic - it is at the heart of the problem you
have uncovered in trying to move artefacts between the CCL and UBL
spreadsheet.  The fundemental concept of CCTS is of a single conceptual
data model from which logical data models are derived.  The logical data
models are not just semantically equivalent to the conceptual data model
- they are the semantics of the conceptual data model with additional
semantic qualifiers that together with qualified (restricted) data types
restrict the value domain of the logical data model artefact to a subset
of its parent conceptual data model artefact value domain.  If UBL had
developed CCs, some of the inconsistencies in the UBL model would not
exist, and the CCs would have become the UN/CEFACT CCs.
 
  
 
UN/CEFACT took a more conservative approach than UBL and finished the
first version of the specifications before publishing the CCL and the
subsequent standard schema.  UN/CEFACT continues to publish CCTS and NDR
conformant XML schema independent of UBL and will do so for the
forseeable future - while simultaneously working with UBL to finalize
the transfer for responsibility of all future development work into
UN/CEFACT. UBL has publicly stated it supports such a transfer and is
only currently engaged in maintenance on UBL 2.

 
But there were provisos ... 
 

Yes there are.  And those should be publicly shared on a routine basis
whenver a UBLer claims in some briefing trying to sell UBL that it will
become the business language of UN/CEFACT. 
 
  
 
Any comparison of UN/CEFACT and OASIS is like comparing apples and
oranges - given their structure, policies, and stated objectives.
UN/CEFACT is a recognized de jure international cross-industry business
standards organization and certainly carries much weight with solution
providors and others.  OASIS is a consortium of individual not
necessarily harmonized standards initiatives - with a primary focus on
technical vice business standards many of whom operate in an incubator
role.  The technical standards carry much weight with solution providors
and others, whereas the business standards generally do not.  Each
organization has their own purpose and their own pluses and minuses. 

 

Well that is self-fulfilling and if Mark doesn't mind me saying so
'anecdotal'.   Actually, it is only partially anecdotal - the part about
who is supporting which standard  I grant is anecdotal - however it is
clear that at least from SAP and Oracle which horse they are riding -
and it is not UBL.  The same can be said for the various B2B standards
organizations and government agencies who are working on alignment and
convergence with UN/CEFACT B2B content and UN/CEFACT B2B methodologies.
As for the matter of the purpose and intent - It is a simple matter to
look at the charters and operating policies of UN/CEFACT and OASIS, and
the public pronouncements of their leadership which state exactly the
foregoing. In fact OASIS was initially established much differently. 
Recommended reading would be the original documents created by Jon which
actually detailed two levels of OASIS standards.  I think part of what
gets lost in these discussions is that UBL is only one of many TC'
within OASIS - each with their own objectives and work programs and
architecture concepts, whereas the UN/CEFACT Forum's primary purpose is
B2B standards supported by the other permanent groups under the auspecis
of the UN/CEFACT Plenary, Bureau, and Forum Management Group.

If at the end of the day it is only UBL delivering on its undertakings
regarding business
content then which is most 'de jure'? As far as I know it the main
deliverable actually
completed in CEFACT is the NDR and that isn't content. By Mark's
argument it would figure
that the OASIS Standard for an NDR would trimp CEFACT's   

 I am not sure I understand why this continued assertion that UN/CEFACT
is not delivering XML business content.  the UN/CEFACT CCL is much more
robust that its UBL counterpart, and UN/CEFACT has already delivered a
significant number of XML B2B schema.  I see the XML NDR as a business
standard, as it is nothing more than a profile of XSD for B2B messages. 


 
 Mark argues,   is 'de jure' for business content and OASIS is
incubating technical standards. CEFACT
seems to be very much trailing UBL regarding the business
messages/content so which
one is 'de jure'? I guess if you want 'de jure' you might have to wait a
long time. In the
meantime there is what isn't 'de jure' but is 'out there' and usable/in
use. So does that make
CEFACT still the 'de jure' and OASIS the 'incubator'? I think not :-)
 
I guess it's for others 'outside' to decide what is 'de jure' not those
of us 'inside'. 

True enough.  Lets start with the MOUMG - voting members consist of four
globally recognized de jure standards organizations: ISO, IEC, ITU, and
UNECE (UN/CEFACT).  OASIS is a liaison member and UBL an invited guest. 
Has UBL been mandated by governments thus giving it de jure status: 
Yes.  Is it of the same stature as ISO, IEC, ITU, and UNECE - I thing
you would be hard pressed to convince anyone of that.
 
Best Regards,
 
Mark