Re: [ubl] Update on UBL and CEFACT: State of play and the way ahead

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

I would have to pass your points 2) and 3) on to Mark and CEFACT.  However, i understand that TBG1 attendees at the recent meeting are preparing the minutes, notes and supporting documents so it may be wise to await their description of events before we go down that path.

As far as the UBL position goes we have deliberately tried not used the term 'harmonization' in any of our plans.  I think the activity currently engaged by the UBL-TBG1 group is that given as Task 3 in our agreed activites and next steps plan.  This is...

•    Task 3: Detailed (post-2.0 convergence) GAP analysis
The objective is to identify the all differences between the documents in common between UBL and TBG1.  This will form the basis for planned convergence of UBL schemas and TBG1 Business Requirement Specifications.

So where it says "rather than 'harmonising' our individual outputs, our task is to co[n]verge towards a third solution that combines the best of the individual standards." I see that as convergence, so i wouldn't consider it out of scope for their brief.

However, i infer you are uncomfortable with this approach.  Maybe you could share your concerns between harmonization and convergence and why you think it is important to isolate the two?  It is fairly critical that none of us have different understandings of what we are trying to achieve.

Sylvia Webb wrote:

Tim,
I am participating in the TBG17 F2F meeting this week and will not be able
to participate in the Wednesday UBL call. Rather than make any comments
about my opinions via email, I have a few questions for you and Mark Palmer:

1) Please point me to the UBL minutes which empowered this TBG1/UBL team to
change the previously agreed task of harmonization to, and I quote, "our
task is to converge towards a third solution that combines the best of the
individual standards."
2) Please point me to the location of the public portion of Bureau minutes
where this group was empowered to make decisions concerning a solution other
than the previously agreed ones on harmonization.
3) Please point me to the location of the public portion of the FMG minutes
where the Bureau decision to empower this coordination team was discussed
with the FMG.

Regards,
Sylvia

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] 
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:19 PM
To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl] Update on UBL and CEFACT: State of play and the way ahead

In preparation for our scheduled discussion at the plenary (Wednesday
09:15), I have drafted some briefing points...

* At the UN/CEFACT Plenary meeting in Geneva on May 22, the Chair (Stuart
Feder) included the following  slide in his opening presentation:

  

OASIS/UBL and UN/CEFACT collaboration plan
- work together to build a common set of eBusiness document standards
- work with all relevant Forum Groups
- common core components and business processes
- recognition of UBL v.2 as appropriate first-generation XML documents 
for eBusiness
    

* Mark Palmer (Vice Chair of UN/CEFACT) and I propose we should act as the
management team for issues related to UBL/CEFACT collaboration.  
There seems no point in adding further layers into the mix.

* The document entitled "UN/CEFACT and OASIS/UBL Collaboration Summary of
the agreed current activities and next steps" 
(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/18152/current%20activitie
s%20and%20next%20steps.doc)
describes the areas of collaboration required.

* The UBL-TBG1 team met with TBG1 representatives last month. To quote the
UBL team lead, Mark Leitch, "the tone of the meeting was very co-operative
and that we all agree that, rather than 'harmonising' our individual
outputs, our task is to converge towards a third solution that combines the
best of the individual standards. "
Two other points of note were:
1) in choosing the invoice, we have started with a difficult message
(although it is the right one to start with)
2) structural differences have appeared straight away e.g. in delivery and
allowance.  It is recognised that the successful convergence of ABIEs etc.
depends on our submitting candidate components and change requests and on
other groups working in this area.
The group started creating a formal gap-analysis where all gaps missing in
the TBG1 Cross Industry Invoice are documented and resolved. There is a
follow-up meeting scheduled in September in Brussels. Their deliverables
included a draft work plan detailing the start and end dates for all UBL
e-procurement dates.

* TBG3 have again given valuable feedback on the UBL 2.0 draft.  As with
TBG1, this has identified useful areas for future collaboration and broader
issues of alignment..

* My personal feeling is that for our overall collaboration with CEFACT to
be effective we need the consider the true status of work within some key
areas such as: the TBG17 Core Component Library, the Core Component Working
Group of TMG and the Naming and Design Rules from ATG2. 

* We have a proposal for UBL's Naming and Design Rules team to identify
significant gaps between the UBL and ATG2 NDRs and draft a plan for
resolution.  We have been invited to table this for the next ATG2 meeting on
September 11.  However we must try to avoid a complex set of technical
arguments that have no resolution. One strategy we may want to consider is
establishing a testbed to demonstrate the possible way ahead.  We could
look at the work being done between UBL and TBG1 as providing a BRS/data
model for a new descendant Invoice document.  This could then be implemented
using both UBL and ATG2 Naming and Design Rules, allowing a reasoned debate
on the merits of each approach.  That is, comparing apples to apples.

* My message to UBL members at present is plan for how we want to proceed,
but recognize we cannot start doing much until October (post UBL 2.0
normative package finalization).  My message the Mark is that if CEFACT
groups could reciprocate then it would prepare us for action as soon as
possible.

* The next UN/CEFACT Forum meeting is in Delhi (October 2-6).  Do any UBL
members plan to attend?  The subsequent venue (March 2007) has not been
finalized.

--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath




  

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath