OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: [regrep] FW: UBL and UN/CEFACT

Not being on either commitee, I'm obviously one of the many who perceives
the mission of the two initiatives to be in conflict.  I'm happy to know
that there is not any overlap, I just hope that the parties involved work to
clarify this issue.


----- Original Message -----
From: "CHIUSANO, Joseph" <JCHIUSANO@lmi.org>
To: "ebXML Regrep (E-mail)" <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 2:15 PM
Subject: [regrep] FW: UBL and UN/CEFACT

Registry TC,

Just an FYI - to Matt's earlier comment:

In any case, its to no one's benefit to start a turf war or competition as
seen between UBL and ebCC.

Please see the e-mail below for some late-breaking news (please note that I
am not in any way disputing Matt's observation, just adding to the picture).
As a UBL member, I agree with the statement below that "there is NO ACTUAL
overlap between the UBL work and the Core Components work.".

Kind Regards,

> **************************************************************************
>   Joseph M. Chiusano
>   Logistics Management Institute
>   2000 Corporate Ridge
>   McLean, VA 22102
>   Email: jchiusano@lmi.org
>   Tel: 571.633.7722
> **************************************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Gannon [mailto:patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 5:03 PM
To: ebxml-mgmt@lists.ebxml.org; ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org;
un-tmwg@gefeg.com; cefact-ewg@list.unicc.org;
ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark
Cc: Carol Geyer; Karl Best; ebxml-mgmt@lists.ebxml.org;
KNaujok@attglobal.net; jamie.clark@mmiec.com; raywalker@attglobal.net;
rberwanger@btrade.com; mcrawford@lmi.org; jon.bosak@sun.com
Subject: RE: UBL and UN/CEFACT

Jamie, Ralph, Ray and Klaus,

After meeting with Ray and Klaus at the CEFACT meeting in Geneva on
Thursday, I took their recommendation to heart and talked with as many of
the UBL members and CEFACT ATG members as possible.  One thing I discovered
is that there is NO ACTUAL overlap between the UBL work and the Core
Components work.  This reinforces my assertion that we (OASIS, UBL TC and
CEFACT) need to do a better job of educating our members and the larger
community of interested parties on exactly what the charters and work
products of these two groups are and how they fit together in a
complementary fashion.  Acquisition of a TC is not a substitution for clear,
unified communication on scope of work.

However, I did find UBL members and industry org reps who stated that we
need to find a way to better link the work of UBL with the industry domain
experts that will be doing industry specific work in the CEFACT ATG.  This
is an area of resource utilization and coordination that certainly is open
for creative dialog on how to bridge these efforts using the limited
resources from companies who participate in both CEFACT ATG and OASIS UBL.
I also expressed my views that widespread adoption of standards (such as
UBL) is a function of "sanction" and "traction".  Any solution on this
issues needs to address both axis of the adoption curve.  Time-to-market is
still as much a part of the issue today as it was in 1997 when I worked with
Bob Glushko to champion the original NIST-sponsored CBL effort between
CommerceNet and Veo Systems.  A "UBL" was needed then and is still a gapping
hole in the family of e-Business standards.

I look forward to receiving the proposal from CEFACT and hope that it will
be based on the facts of the matter, and consider all issues related to the
development AND adoption of UBL.

Respectfully submitted,

Patrick Gannon
President & CEO
PO Box 455, Billerica, MA  01821
+1-978-667-5115 x201 (Office)
+1-408-242-1018  (Mobile)
+1-978-667-5114  (Fax)

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jbc@lawyer.com]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:59 PM
To: ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; cefact-ewg@list.unicc.org;
un-tmwg@gefeg.com; ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org; ebxml-mgmt@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: jon.bosak@sun.com; mcrawford@lmi.org; rberwanger@btrade.com;
raywalker@attglobal.net; jamie.clark@mmiec.com; KNaujok@attglobal.net;
ebxml-mgmt@lists.ebxml.org; patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org
Subject: UBL and UN/CEFACT

Experts and business user communities have expressed concern to us about the
duplication of resources between the OASIS UBL project and UN/CEFACT's ebXML
Core Components project.  Many implementers are uncertain about whether the
two projects are complementary or divergent.  We have also received many
inquiries about whether the two projects can be combined.

Ultimately, whether to recombine is a question for the members of UBL and
the participants in the relevant UN/CEFACT work groups.  However, the
personal opinion of the undersigned is that we should seek to promote it.
The underlying harmonization work and message is diluted by division, and
would be enhanced by being unified.

Some UBL representatives have indicated that UBL would be pleased to work
within UN/CEFACT under specific conditions, among which were a separate work
group for UBL, continuation of the current UBL leadership, and continuation
of procedural operating rules currently employed by UBL and/or OASIS.  If
these accurately reflect the wishes of UBL's membership, UN/CEFACT may be
able to accommodate some of them.  We will recommend that the appropriate
bodies explore those options at the upcoming Forum meeting in Geneva next

The CC team and its work currently reside in UN/CEFACT's TMG group (along
with the UMM and most other UN/CEFACT ebXML projects).  There may be other
equally appropriate solutions.  Several UBL leaders are candidates for
UN/CEFACT group leadership positions.  We welcome their participation.
There appear to be a sufficient number of positions and projects, and
opportunities to define additional projects, to accommodate as many of the
UBL members as care to participate.

Our own review of the OASIS, UBL and UN/CEFACT procedural rules suggests
that there are very few differences.  We would be happy to bring any
recommended changes to the Forum for discussion and ultimately to
UN/CEFACT's plenary (its member delegations).  However, we may need to
understand better any specific concerns about UN rules.  As an international
inter-governmental organization, UN/CEFACT must take formal actions based on
articulated reasons if it is to alter its voting, procedural or public
consultation rules.

There may be other organizational ways to align these efforts.  UBL's
current venue is OASIS, our partner in the ebXML project, which may also be
able to contribute suggestions for better coordination.   We believe
strongly that open, public discussion of these issues is the best way to
address and resolve them.

As a community, we have a short window of opportunity to cooperatively
create a unified suite of open, nonproprietary and international e-business
standards.  In our view it is the right time for open conversations and
compromise, and the wrong time for splintered efforts.  We look forward to
discussing these issues with UBL and UN/CEFACT participants alike during the
upcoming Geneva meetings.

Ralph Berwanger
Jamie Clark
Klaus-Dieter Naujok
Ray Walker

Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com


To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC