[ubl-comment] Re: [EDI-L] ebXML CPA/CPP Estimate

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

James Bryce Clark wrote:

> At 10:17 PM 11/27/01, Peter Olivola wrote:
>
>> As you noted, Mike, the bulk of the effort, whether EDI or ebXML or
>> Ewok,
>> still gets down to, in it's simplest terms, a definition of "ship
>> date."
>> That's not a technical issue now and no flavor of XML will make it
>> one.  As
>> long as there is no agreement on common business terms there will be
>> little
>> advantage to one data format over another.
>
>
> 1.  Peter is absolutely right.
> 2.  Mike, or anyone, are those taxonomy issues in-scope for UBL?  I
> know you're defining a set of what xCBL calls "documents" but am less
> clear about plans to specify default or required codesets -- NAICS,
> UNSPSC, that sort of thing.  Certainly they are a key piece of the Big
> Puzzle.
> 3.  And if there's an EwokXML, sign me up.
>

re:  2 - I'm not quite sure exactly how to answer this one, but here
goes.  There is a UBL subcommittee that is doing a mapping from xCBL
elements to ebXML/CEFACT core components, and back again.  In this
process they are identifying a set of business information entities
(core components used in a specific context) that will be the foundation
of the UBL "library", and will be submitted back into CEFACT.  This
exercise will also help eliminate duplicates and do some other
harmonization in xCBL.  Regarding codesets (code lists, enumerated
lists, whatever), there is a proposal to only use recognized external
code lists (e.g., ISO 3166 country codes), and not use EDI-style
internal code lists ("BY" in N101 means we have a Buyer name).
Elements would be named specifically rather than using another coded
element to specify the type (e.g., <buyer> instead of <party
partyRole="Buyer">)
That proposal has not been discussed as yet.

Does this answer your question?

re:  3  I'm still working on WoofXML...
--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com