[ubl] Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG "Generic Header"Pro ject

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

thanks for your prompt and considered response.

i really don't want to dwell on this point, but i have to ask again if you
can provide examples where this requirement is demonstrated.  I ask this,
because I am a well experienced EDI person who has had to deal with this
mis-use of message architecture for 14 years and fear it being rebuilt within
XML.

if in reality i had only one leg, then a prosthetic would be a real need.
 If i have two legs, it isn't.  Some EDI implementations were designed with
one leg, when the real users realised this, they built around them.  Now
they think a false leg is part of the deal.

Kudela, Melanie wrote:

 I am also not sure since most of my emails get bounced back, not being on the list-server.

You say, The only rationale so far is that EDI had them, so we need them to.  I don't understand why one would think that way. There is much in EDI (not being an EDI person myself, this is what I hear from those in the know) that should not be recreated in XML and isn't.

It is the " specific internal business processes " that we are standardizing - in essence, the firewall-to-firewall approach does not work in reality - ask real users if you don't want to believe our team.

As far as whether UBL decides to join in or not, that is up to your team, I certainly appreciate that you are busy with priorities and need to stay close to the knitting. However, if UBL is interested in real users and implementations in our life times, they will pay attention to real business needs. That is my personal opinion on this matter and why I have raised this issue to the UN/CEFACT level on behalf of my users.

This has been an interesting discussion, regardless,

Melanie

Melanie

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath
To: Kudela, Melanie
Cc: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: 2/14/2003 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG "Generic Header" Project

Melanie,

I am not sure if you are replying to me directly, or the UBL list, so
let me put my personal view (i have no organisational one).

My comments were to point out that I haven't see a clear case of what
the requirement for a 'Generic Header' is.  The 'information items' that
you list on your matrix are so similar to those of ebXML MS that I
wonder why we need them.  The only rationale so far is that EDI had
them, so we need them to. 

I don't want to buy into this debate, just get a clearer view of the
architecture being proposed.  Once again, the UML diagrams in the
attached documents do not add anything that either a message service
interface or specific internal business processes would not cover.

As Duane Nickull has indicated on the ebxml-dev list, this is an
architectural issue, not one that those in the ebXML MS team necessarily
appreciate (from their comments i suspect they just think its a business
need).  My hope is that coming out of the discussion with the ebXML MS
group and the Architecture team, you will be able to define the
currently unfulfiled function that this project addresses.  

As such, i don't think UBL has anything to 'sort through' - until we
know what value this project adds,  it is just a distraction from our
work.  UBL is just about standard messages,defining the information
necessary for a business application.  it assumes that choreography and
business process modeling is taken care of at a different layer.  

Footnote:
My apologies for cross posting this thread (i hope it makes sense to
you), my objective was to address both the UBL and ebXML communities
without duplicating a long list of responses.

Kudela, Melanie wrote:

We (GH group) are also happy to work with ebXML and UBL teams to sort
this through. ALthough we have no draft document yet, we do have a an
assorted amount of documentation as well as a spreadsheet for
incorporating the various ways standard bodies currently handle the
attributes that will eventually be used to post the ebMS message or
other message (EDI, etc.).

One way that we could enlist your support is request that the
organization you are representing provide the input into the our
spreadsheet. It will then be considered during our discussions in San
Diego.

Melanie Kudela
Director, XML Development

Uniform Code Council, Inc.
Princeton Pike Corporate Center
1009 Lenox Drive
Suite 202
Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648

mkudela@uc-council.org <mailto:mkudela@uc-council.org> 
609-620-4514

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [ mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au
<mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> ]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:35 AM
To: jon.bosak@sun.com <mailto:jon.bosak@sun.com> 
Cc: agregory@aeon-llc.com <mailto:agregory@aeon-llc.com> ;
ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org> ;

ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org> ;
Kudela, Melanie
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG "Generic Header"
Project

Personally, I am happy to trust the relevant parties to sort this out.
 my concern is that UBL not jump into this before the architectural
issues have been thought through.

I am encouraged to hear (via ebxml-dev) the ATG and the ebXML teams are
working together on this issue. so lets wait and see what they come up
with.

Jon Bosak wrote:

>Folks,
>
>This is a very important discussion, and it needs to be happening
>out on ebxml-dev where people outside UBL can see it.  I urge you
>to restart this conversation there in order to get all these good
>points out in the open.
>
>Clearly this is shaping up to be an item of interest for the
>UN/CEFACT meeting.
>
>Jon
>
> 
>

--
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

 

--

regards

tim mcgrath

fremantle  western australia 6160

phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142