[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [bdx] New version of BDEA uploaded
|
There are some listings on the Web for the three
catalogs:
ISO 6523 (somewhat old copy), http://metadata-stds.org/Document-library/Draft-standards/6523-Identification-of-Organizations/ICD_list.htm#ICD0009
ISO 20022 has the OrganisationId element in the ISO 20022
registry (their URLs keep changing and the search engine on their site
doesn't work today ..) which references some ISO schemes like BIC, and a
separate set of approved data source schemes, which can be downloaded from
http://www.iso20022.org/External_Code_Lists_and_DSS.page
These three catalogs contain a large number of schemes that
collectively cover millions of business internationally.
A good background document is CWA 16036, ftp://cenftp1.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/Cyber_Identity/CWA_CyberIdentity.pdf.
The authors of that document have a very nice demonstrator,
that allows you to generate ebCore IDs for some schemes:
Pim
From: Markus Gudmundsson [mailto:markus@unimaze.com] Sent: 30 March 2011 12:42 To: Pim van der Eijk; 'Mikkel Hippe Brun'; 'Business Document Exchange TC List' Subject: RE: [bdx] New version of BDEA uploaded Unfortunately
I cannot attend the full meeting today, but hopefully part of
it. Regarding
point 4) is the list of the mapping of these identifiers available somewhere? Is
it only contained in the ISO documents? Markús
Sendill
– Dreifingarmiðstöð | http://www.sendill.is | Vertu vinur okkar á
Facebook !!! From: Pim van
der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net] I have
not studied this document fully, but here are some
comments: 1) I
would recommend starting to use the OASIS specification templates as soon as
possible, to save yourselves a lot of editing time later
.. 2) In an
architecture of 4 corner document exchange, I would have expected to see an
explanation or justification of a 4 corner model of communication, and the
requirements it addresses. Instead, the introduction starts with a
sweeping statement: "It is widely recognized that the 4-corner model is the
right model for secure and reliable exchange of business documents between
business partners". I'm not saying I diagree. But given that there
has been a massive shift away from service provider-based models to peer-to-peer
communication and the success of protocols like AS2, this statement
deserves more justification. 3) The
document proposes that all Access Points must support a default transport
protocol and proposes a specific transport protocol. We discussed
this in the past, and then it was agreed that we would leave
such decisions to conformance clauses/profiles. Multiple conformance
profiles could make different choices. Any proposed
default for transport protocol would need to be justified, e.g. established
market share among service providers would perhaps favour adopting AS2 as
default protocol since it is the most widely used B2B transport protocol in many
parts of the world. 4) The
document also proposes a participant identifier scheme that combines scheme
identifier and identifier code. I'm not sure why the specifics of
identifier schemes needs to be discussed in an architecture document. There are
some ISO standard scheme catalogs, such as 6523, 20022, 9735. There
is also an established OASIS party identifier which has been used for some
years and is seeing increased adoption: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebcore/PartyIdType/v1.0/ I'm not
sure why a new method of concatenating catalog identifier, scheme identifier and
scheme-specific identifier is needed. Pim From: Mikkel
Hippe Brun [mailto:mhb@tradeshift.com] If you have time before the BDX meeting later today. Take a
look at the following sections:
Download Document: |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]