RE: [bdx] New version of BDEA uploaded

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Pim,

And those UBL prefixes are a REAL turn-off
- very complex and hard to parse.

They are not a good model in my opinion.
 They make a document that contains them pretty well unreadable.


Yours, Mike

Dr Mike Edwards		Mail Point 137, Hursley Park
STSM		Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN
SCA & Services Standards		United Kingdom
Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC
IBM Software Group
Phone:	+44-1962 818014
Mobile:	+44-7802-467431 (274097)
e-mail:	mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	"Pim van der Eijk" <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>
To:	"'Markus Gudmundsson'" <markus@unimaze.com>, "'Jens Jakob Andersen'" <jjan@itst.dk>, "'Mikkel Hippe Brun'" <mhb@tradeshift.com>, "'Business Document Exchange TC List'" <bdx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	30/03/2011 13:34
Subject:	RE: [bdx] New version of BDEA uploaded

---

Yes,  coverage in an issue.  There are two approaches (other
than the third, define a custom 
identifier):
-  there is an "unregistered" escape option in ebCore to
add
missing schemes.  
-  make sure more schemes are added to the ISO registries. 

The second approach is being taken in a proposed project I
am working on which intends to make sure 
there is an ISO 6523 scheme registered for any business in
any European country (and European 
including non-EU countries).  The goal of that proposed
project is exactly to fix holes like this.

On verbosity:  the ebCore prefix is formally IANA registered
and there are some rules to it so we were 
not really free in our choice.  But it is not more verbose
than what many of you are used to as
UBL users. The root element of any UBL document alone has a
few hundred characters of namespace 
declarations that use the same OASIS URN namespace.

Here is an excerpt from a sample UBL document: 

<Order
xmlns:qdt="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Qual
ifiedDatatypes-2"
                
xmlns:ccts="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Cor
eComponentParameters-2"
                
xmlns:cbc="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Comm
onBasicComponents-2"
                
xmlns:cac="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Comm
onAggregateComponents-2"
                
xmlns:udt="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:draft:UnqualifiedDataT
ypesSchemaModule:2"
                
xmlns="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Order-2"
>
   ....
</Order>
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Gudmundsson [mailto:markus@unimaze.com]
Sent: 30 March 2011 13:46
To: Jens Jakob Andersen; Pim van der Eijk; 'Mikkel Hippe
Brun'; 'Business Document Exchange TC List'
Subject: RE: [bdx] New version of BDEA uploaded

I see none of these lists have an identifier used for
Icelandic companies for example, so they are incomplete it
seems. Therefore I see a good reason for a "combined"
identifier, which can assemble all practical business
identifiers into one list for the purpose of document
exchane (or more) - and reduce possible chaos :-)

Markús

-----Original Message-----
From: Jens Jakob Andersen [mailto:jjan@itst.dk]
Sent: 30. mars 2011 11:30
To: Pim van der Eijk; Markus Gudmundsson; 'Mikkel Hippe
Brun'; 'Business Document Exchange TC List'
Subject: SV: [bdx] New version of BDEA uploaded

Dear Pim

The ebCore very much resembles the UPIS scheme utilized in
PEPPOL.

PEPPOL did in fact at some point in time evaluated using the
ebCore scheme - but dropped it again due to the complexity -
compare:
urn:oasis:names:tc:ebcore:partyid-type:iso6523:0088:76100290
00009
to
0088:7610029000009

The challenge I see in BDX is to be open for different
schemes to be usable - and not narrow BDX down to "one ring
to bind them all" ;-)

It is the lack of interoperability between the many existing
initiatiaves which is the hurdle that BDX must solve.

Best regards

Jens Jakob


________________________________________
Fra: Pim van der Eijk [pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sendt: 30. marts 2011 13:17
Til: 'Markus Gudmundsson'; 'Mikkel Hippe Brun'; 'Business
Document Exchange TC List'
Emne: 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/65
23-Identification-of-Organizations/ICD_list.htm#ICD0009

ISO 9735
http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d95b/uncl/unsl.htm.

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_Cyber
Identity.pdf.

The authors of that document have a very nice demonstrator,
that allows you to generate ebCore IDs for some schemes:

http://www.cyber-identity.com/demonstrator

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


--
Markús Guðmundsson l
markus@unimaze.com<mailto:markus@unimaze.com>
Managing Director / Consultant

Sendill - Dreifingarmiðstöð |
http://www.sendill.is<http://www.sendill.is/>
 | Vertu vinur
okkar á Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/sendill.is>
!!!
Unimaze Software l
http://www.unimaze.com<http://www.unimaze.com/>
Ofanleiti 2, 103 Reykjavik, Iceland l Phone +354 588-7575

Please note that this e-mail and its attachments are
intended for the named addressee only and may contain
information that is confidential and privileged. If you have
by coincidence or mistake or without specific authorization
received this e-mail and its attachments we request that you
notify us immediately that you have received them in error,
uphold strict confidentiality and neither read, copy, nor
otherwise make use of their content in any way. Please note
that the sender of this e-mail and its attachments is solely
responsible for its content if it does not concern the
operations of Unimaze Software



From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent: 30. mars 2011 10:24
To: 'Mikkel Hippe Brun'; 'Business Document Exchange TC
List'
Subject: RE: [bdx] New version of BDEA uploaded


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]
Sent: 30 March 2011 10:56
To: Business Document Exchange TC List
Subject: [bdx] New version of BDEA uploaded If you have time
before the BDX meeting later today. Take a look at the
following sections:

 *   Overview
 *   A model for re-using existing identifier schemes
 *   Trust and security
Download Document:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41668/Busi
ness_Document_Exchange_Architecture_BEDA_v0p3.pdf

Best regards,
Mikkel

Mikkel Hippe Brun

Voice: +45 3118 9102
Skype: hippebrun
Twitter: @hippebrun  @tradeshift
Mail: mhb@tradeshift.com<mailto:mhb@tradeshift.com>
Web: http://tradeshift.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU