[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-comment] UBL and UN/CEFACT (copy)
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, cefact-ewg@list.unicc.org, 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 week. 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC